Economics 387L

Course Overview

This course presents a survey of the "autonomist" tradition in Marxism. The term "autonomist" is used here to designate a dominant, though by no means the only, characteristic of this particular tradition: the emphasis on the autonomy of the working class in its struggle against capital as well as on the autonomy of various groups of workers vis ˆ vis others of their class. In an earlier incarnation this course was labeled "social capital theory," a title which evokes another aspect of this tradition: the explicit recognition of the systematic extension of capitalist domination and of class struggle throughout the social fabric of the 20th Century, of the emergence of the "social factory" and of the struggles to destroy and escape it. There are many other titles which might be used. None have gained currency either among the practitioners of this tradition or among their opponents, at least not in the English speaking world. In Italy, Germany, and France, where some of the most interesting developments in this tradition have taken place, the general political "space," as the Italians say, occupied by this tradition is called Autonomy or Workers' Autonomy. Autonomist Marxism is thus an adaptation of that designation.

In developing this course, in deciding which materials to include and how to organize them, there have been a number of key considerations to take into account. In the first place the tradition is not only internationalist but has evolved rapidly in several different countries on both sides of the Atlantic. It is easy to identify groups of American, or French, or Italian militants as well as their contributions. But at the same time, in each case, those militants were self-consciously connected in their thinking and sometimes their organizing to many other parts of the world. As a result, despite the importance of local factors, none of those working in this tradition think in local or national terms. It would therefore be somewhat misleading to speak of "the Italian" contribution, or the "American" contribution.

In the second place, because of intense involvement in particular struggles the literature of this tradition is a complex mix of the theoretical, of intervention, and of the historical. Most authors have been involved not only in developing studies of particular situations but also of elaborating new theoretical concepts and directions. It therefore makes little sense to attempt to divide up the material into categories such as "theoretical innovations," "historical studies," or "industrial" versus "sphere of reproduction" studies.

As a result of these considerations I have decided, to organize the presentation of the literature of this tradition around a number of key issues that have occupied its participants. This leads to two more observations. First, the issues chosen are fundamental but hardly exhaustive; others could be included. Second, because all issues are connected, the articles that deal with one almost always deal with others as well. Thus an effort must be made to interlink the various contributions and to understand them in the context of the struggles within which they have been developed. To help with this, I will interweave some commentaries on the evolution of this tradition by its principals and by others. Reading these commentaries is also important because of the intrinsic interest of some of them, and because the literature of this tradition is larger than we can possibly cover in a semester course and so overviews and syntheses are especially useful to give a sense of the whole, both that part studied and that part left for future exploration.

In any survey of a tradition defined in terms of a set of ideas or of political strategies, it often difficult to know where to begin. In some cases, say Marxism in general, we can always start with the fountainhead from which the ideas sprang. Yet even there we can suspect that there are deeper roots which we really need to grasp. In other cases, such as the one at hand, the point of departure is even more ambiguous. Because we are dealing with one tradition in Marxism, we too could begin with Marx. However, this tradition is not based on this or that reading but rather on considerable reinterpretation of much of Marx's writing --too much for a short treatment as an introduction to the later material. Similarly, we can find roots in both Leninism and Anarchism that have contributed to the growth of this tradition, but those too are vast subterranean storehouses, too large to be explored here. Therefore I have decided to limit this course to those writers, groups and tendencies which have been central contributors to the elaboration of this tradition in the recent past --the last 50 years or so. There has been enough direct contact and recognition of influence among those in this tradition to make it possible to identify central lineages, with all their continuities and breaks, as well as important outside influences and parallel developments which appear to be important enough to note.

A final general note: one severe limitation on the comprehensiveness of the materials included in this course is the absence of English translations of many central writings. There are a great many articles and books in Italian, French, German and Portuguese which have not been translated and/or are not available. In some cases, if we have adequate language skills among course participants we will be able to get reports on some of this material, but you must know that the bulk of it will remain "out there" beyond most of our abilities to tap, at least in the short run. A listing of materials (in many languages) in this tradition which are locally available can be found in THE TEXAS ARCHIVES OF AUTONOMIST MARXISM.

Course Prerequisites:

The only prerequisite to this course is the Econ 387L Introduction to Marxian Economics offered every Fall. That course provides an introduction to Marxism based on reading Marx, especially Capital. Taking that course therefore, gives you a point of departure as well as one of reference to evaluate what later Marxists have had to say about Marx's own work and what they have done to develop it (or undermine it as the case may be).

Course Requirements:

A paper dealing with some aspect of the material covered, the subject to be agreed upon between the student and the professor. A first draft due 2/3s of the way through the course, the final version due the last day of class.

Outline of Course Readings:

I. Overview

Although there is no comprehensive study of this tradition available, I did spell out its broad outlines in the introduction to my book READING CAPITAL POLITICALLY, pages 43 to 66. A reading of the whole introduction will situate the tradition within the overall history of Marxism. The introduction can be found on-line.

II. The Theory of the Soviet Union as State Capitalism

Our point of departure will be the perception, held by virtually all contributors to this tradition, that the existing socialisms of the world have not, either in individual countries or collectively, constituted any real alternative to Western capitalism. This position has mostly taken the form of a critique of Soviet and other socialisms which argues that they constitute only a new form of capitalism: a state capitalism, given the centrality of the state in the organization and imposition of accumulation. This critique originated soon after the Russian Revolution in 1917 among a number of anarchist and other communist groups who rejected the recentralization of power by the Bolsheviks as well as their projects of "socialist" accumulation.

Among the many left groups within which there rapidly developed a critique of the centralizing tendencies of Bolshevism were the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) --the most radical of all American labor movements-- and the Council Communists which originated in Germany and Holland. Along with European revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg, Wobblies such as Big Bill Haywood had hailed the Revolution of 1905 as an inspiring example of the power of the General Strike and, like many others, greeted the Revolution of 1917 enthousiastically. That enthousiasm quickly waned, however, in response not only to the Bolsheviks' displacement of the Soviets, but also to their efforts to dominate workers' movements in other countries. Both of these developments confirmed the Wobblie's long standing suspicions and hostility toward specifically political organizations not based directly in workers' control of production (as the Soviets had been). So they refused any identity with Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist Party just as they had refused alliance in the U.S. with De Leon and the Socialist Labor Party years before. Unfortunately, the Wobblie critique of Bolshevism, however, left no detailed analysis of the social and political dynamics of the new Soviet System which could be included in this course.

The Council Communist movement grew out of the same fascination with the Soviets in 1905 and 1917, but blossomed as a movement as a result of the experiences of the German Workers' Council's after 1918 and defined itself partly through its polemics against the Bolshevik dominated Third International. Unlike the Wobblies who saw themselves as trade unionists --albeit unlike most trade unionists in so far as they were dedicated to one big union of all workers and to revolution-- the Council Communists developed a critique not only of parliamentary electoral politics but also of trade unionism and of the Soviet Union as state capitalism. It is this last aspect of their work which interests us here, and elements of their writings have been included in course materials.

The most direct lineage of the critique of socialism among Autonomist Marxists today can be traced back to the break with Marxist orthodoxy that developed in the 1930s and 1940s within the ranks of the Trotskyist wing of Marxism-Leninism. This break involved at least three groups in three countries: the Johnson-Forest Tendency in the United States, those around Tony Cliff in England and Socialism ou Barbarie in France. In each case the development of substantial differences with some aspects of the Trotskyist analysis and program led to the development of new theory and new politics. Although these groups were clearly not the first to develop a Left critique of the Soviet Union, they did carry out much more extensive research into the actual social relations of production which had been created in the Soviet Union than any of the previous critics. It is this depth of analysis, coupled with other aspects of their theory, which along with their direct influence on the tradition of autonomist marxism which justifies the space they are accorded below.

Harry Cleaver, "The Critique of Existing Socialism," (typescript) 1989.

W.Jerome and A Buick, "Soviet State Capitalism? The History of an Idea," Survey 62, January 1967.

A. Council Communism

Although, like so many other revolutionaries in Western Europe and elsewhere, they at first admired the revolutions in Russia, especially the workers' creation of the soviets in 1905 and again in 1917, and indeed saw them as a paradigm of revolutionary working class organization, the council communists came to reject, along with many anarchists, the Bolshevik emphasis on the party and their recreation of a centralized state. This rejection involved both a theoretical critique of Soviet socialism as state capitalism and a political split from the Third International. The Council Communist movement was made up of small groups of intellectuals in Western Europe (mainly Germany and Holland) and later the United States. Most prominent among those associated with this tendency were Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, Otto Ruhle, Paul Mattick (who later moved to the United States) and Karl Korsch who, while not officially a council communist, was closely associated with them and often wrote for their publications. All of these were associated with other well known radical-left figures of the time, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknech who were murdered during the period of the councils.

The political work and writings of those who would be called Council Communists began before the first Russian Revolution, within the debates of the Second International (1898-1914), but reached its greatest intensity during and after the revolutionary movements in Germany in 1918 and 1919 based on the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets which were formed at the collapse of the German government and the end of World War I. The Councils were the spontaneous creation of the German working class and, in at least some areas, came to replace temporarily other forms of government. Conflict over the role of the councils, however, both within the council movement and from without, vis ˆ vis the formation of a new parliamentary government separated from them weakened the movement and made it possible for the ruling class to crush them militarily.

The development of a critical attitude towards the new Soviet State among the Council Communists occured very quickly in the context of the relations between their political organizations and the newly formed, Soviet controlled Third International or Comitern. The Comitern Russian leadership was not only centralizing power at home (and destroying the Soviets in the process) but it sought first to push its own political strategies onto all members of the Comitern and then to use the later to gain stability in Western Europe and links with major liberal forces, both in the trade unions and parliament. Not only did the Council Communists critique the evolving relation between the soviets and the Russian state, but they rejected Moscow's call for cooperation with the trade unions and parliament which they saw as systematically counterrevolutionary. It was such conflicts that led Lenin to issue his Left-wing Communism: An infintile Disorder attacking the German radicals and to the subsequent complete break. Although the early debates that led to the break are interesting, and essential for understanding the development of the Council Communist position, the main writings developing a critique of the Soviet Union as a state capitalist regime came later, long after the Council's had been crushed and many of their theoreticians exiled from Germany.

Otto Ruhle, From the Bourgeois to the Proletarian Revolution, 1924, Chapter 2 "The Russian Problem."

"Theses on Bolshevism," International Council Correspondence, No. 3, December 1934.

Paul Mattick, Anti-bolshevik Communism, White Plains: M.E.Sharpe, 1978. Chapter VI: "Otto RŸhle and the German Labour Movement."

Mark Shipway, "Council Communism," in M. Rubel and J. Crump (eds), Non-market Socialism in the Nineteeth and Twentieth Centuries, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987, pp. 104-126.

Peter Rachleff, Marxism and Council Communism, Brooklyn: The Revisionist Press, 1976. Chapter VIII: "Council Communist Theory," especially the section on "The Critique of Bolshevism in Russia," pp. 185-197.

Serge Bricianer, Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils, Saint Louis: Telos Press, 1978.

Bologna, Sergio "Class Composition and the Theory of the Party at the Origin of the Workers' Council Movement," Telos, #13, Fall 1972, pp. 4-27. Translated by Bruno Ramirez from Operai e Stato, Milano: Feltrinelli, 1972, pp. 13-46. (12pp)

B. The Johnson-Forest Tendency

The Johnson-Forest Tendency was built within, and then left, the Trotskyist movement primarily through the efforts of C.L.R. James (J.R. Johnson) and Raya Dunayevskaya (F. Forest). The political differences which led to their break were many but included James' and Dunayevskaya's analysis of the Soviet Union as state capitalism as opposed to the 4th International's lanalysis of Russia as a "degenerate workers' state" or the Workers' Party's analysis of "bureaucratic collectivism." Over time the the JFT's theoretical and political work led to disagreements with other Trotskyists on almost all levels and issues. After breaking with the Trotskyist movement altogether in 1951, James and Dunayevskaya founded a new group called Correspondence. During the early 1950s Correspondence extended their critique of the Soviet Union to its new, post WWII satellites in Eastern Europe. They responded enthusiastically to the revolts in Eastern Europe in 1953 and in Hungary in 1956, especially to the formation of autonomous workers' councils. They saw in these creations a concrete alternative to capitalism. After several years, they themselves split apart with the James' contingent creating a new group called Facing Reality,(now defunct) while Dunayevskaya's started their own group called News and Letters (still operating). The materials listed below contain a sampling of their critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalism along with some commentaries. Few overviews of the history of the Johnson-Forest Tendency are available, but see: Paul Buhle, C.L.R. James: The Artist as Revolutionary, New York: Verso, 1989.

C.L.R. James, "Resolution on the Russian Question," submitted to the Second Workers' Party National Convention in September 1941.

J.R. Johnson and Joseph Carter, "Aspects of Marxian Economics," THE NEW INTERNATIONAL, Vol.VIII, No. 3, April 1942.

F. Forest (R.Dunayevskaya), "An Analysis of Russian Economy," Part I: 3 articles in the NEW INTERNATIONAL (Dec 1942, Jan. 1943 and Feb.43) These articles, along with two others [see below] were reprinted by News and Letters in 1973 as a pamphlet: The Original HIstorical Analysis: Russia as State-capitalist Society.

Raya Dunayevskaya, "A New Revision of Marxian Economics," American Economic Review, September 1944.

F. Forest (R.Dunayevskaya), "The Nature of the Russian Economy: A Contribution on the Discussion on Russia," Part II: 2 articles in the New International (Dec.1946 and Jan.1947) These articles, along with three others [see above] were reprinted by News and Letters in 1973 as a pamphlet: THE ORIGINAL HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: RUSSIA AS STATE-CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

C.L.R.James (with Raya Dunayevskaya and Grace Lee) STATE CAPITALISM AND WORLD REVOLUTION (1949)

Raya Dunayevskaya, MARXISM AND FREEDOM (1958): especially chapter XIII:"Russian State Capitalism vs Workers Revolt."

C.L.R. James, Grace C. Lee, and Pierre Chaulieu, FACING REALITY: THE NEW SOCIETY... WHERE TO LOOK FOR IT, HOW TO BRING IT CLOSER. A STATEMENT FOR OUR TIME, Bewick/Ed, 1974. (Originally published by the Correspondence Publishing Committee in 1958.) Especially Chapter II: "The Whole World."

C. Socialism ou Barbarie

Socialism ou Barbarie was a journal founded by Cornelius Castoriadis and Claude Lefort in France in 1949. Like the Johnson-Forest people, they split from the Trotskyist Fourth International over disagreements which included the interpretation of the nature of the USSR. Not only did the evolution of the group around SouB have many striking similarities with the J-F Tendency, but the two groups were in direct contact with each other, published each others materials and cosigned various documents indicating the similarities of their views. The views of Socialism ou Barbarie on the nature of the Soviet Union differ significantly from those of the JFT but never led to any difficulty in the two groups working together. Perhaps the major difference was one of emphasis. Whereas the Johnson-Forest people tended to emphasize the Soviet imposition of accumulation and working class resistance to that imposition, the SOCIALISM OU BARBARIE authors tended to emphasize the structure of state power, i.e., bureaucracy. Among the links between the two groups was SOCIALISM OU BARBARIE's translation and publication of THE AMERICAN WORKER by Paul Romano and Ria Stone (Grace Lee) (See Section III below) Romano and Lee's work paralleled that of SOCIALISM OU BARBARIE's factory workers-authors, such as Daniel MothŽ who was a worker in a Renault plant and wrote of his day to day conflicts between worker creativity and managerial repression. Later on the principal writers in SOCIALISM OU BARBARIE, Castoriadis and Lefort, would abandon Marxism, but in the early 1950s their work constituted a definite contribution to its development.

Cornelius Castoriadis, "From Bolshevism to the Bureaucracy," OUR GENERATION, 12, No.2 (Fall 1977):43-54.

Cornelius Castoriadis, "The Relations of Production in Russia," in Cornelius Castoriadis, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL WRITINGS, VOLUME 1, 1946-1955: FROM THE CRITIQUE OF BUREAUCRACY TO THE POSITIVE CONTENT OF SOCIALISM, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.

Andre Liebich,"SOCIALISM OU BARBARIE, a Radical Critique of Bureaucracy," OUR GENERATION, 12, no.2 (Fall 1977):55-62.

Arthur Hirsh, THE FRENCH NEW LEFT: AN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY FROM SARTRE TO GORZ, Boston: South End Press, 1981, Chapter 5: "Castoriadis and Socialisme ou Barbarie."

"An Interview with C.Lefort," TELOS 15 (Spring 1973):3-20.

"An Interview with C.Castoriadis," TELOS 23 (Spring 1975):117-130.

D. The English Dissent

In England, at about the same time as JFT and SouB, a number of English Trotskyists also elaborated a critique of the Soviet Union as State Capitalist. Although not as central to the development of the tradition at hand as the other two groups discussed above, the further international character of this theory is worth noting.


III.Working Class Autonomy

As the title of the course suggests the view of the working class as having an essential autonomy from capital, an ability to initiate its own self activity and not to be purely reactive to capitalist depredations has been a dominant theme of the tradition under consideration. This appreciation of working class autonomy has included an understanding of the autonomy of workers not only from capital, but from the official organizations of the class (e.g.the party and the trade unions) and from other sectors of the working class itself.

Paul Buhle, "Marxism in the USA," URGENT TASKS, No.12, Summer 1981 (Special issue on C.L.R. James.)

C.L.R.James, Grace C. Lee, and Pierre Chaulieu,"The Workers' Councils: Hungary," in FACING REALITY, Detroit: Bewick/ed, 1958.

George Rawick, "Working Class Self-Activity," RADICAL AMERICA ,Vol.3, No.2 (March-April 1969).

*Ferrucio Gambino, "Only Connect," URGENT TASKS, No.12, Summer 1981 (Special issue on C.L.R. James.) pp.95-96.

Working class self-activity vis a vis capital

At the most general level, that of the class relation as a whole, the dominant traditions of Marxism, especially orthodox Marxism, but also the critical theory of the Frankfort school tradition, have only given lip service to the basic Marxian notion that the dynamics of the history of class societies lies in the struggle between the classes. The actual theories elaborated within those dominant traditions portray only one historical class subject: capital. The working class is seen, for the most part as a victim of capital's exploitation and unable to affect the course of capitalist development --unless, of course, it joins the Party, or the critical theorists, to overthrow the state. Workers struggles have been seen as inadequate, in and of themselves, to bring about such radical change.

Typical of such views have been most theories of capitalist accumulation and crisis. Accumulation has been understood to occur, for the most part, as a result of the competition among capitalist firms --a formulation which leaves the working class out of the dynamics all together. Crisis, in turn, has been understood to occur as a result of the working out of the inexorable laws of capitalism, e.g., underconsumptionist theories of overproduction. Even where critical theoreists have admitted that workers' "economic" struggles could challenge capital, they have affirmed capital's ability to "instrumentalize" or "integrate" those struggles into moments of capital's own growth --an analysis which, in their formulations, again submerges the working class within capital's own logic.

Against such understandings, the tradition we are studying here has emphasized the ability of the working class not only to resist capital's depredations but also to launch its own initiatives of struggles --struggles which repeatedly rupture capital accumulation, precipitate crisis and threaten the complete overthrow of the system. The analysis of such struggles has been developed on many levels. At the most general level, the power and autonomy of struggles have been studied which have brought about dramatic revolutionary ruptures. Against Marxist-Leninist interpretations which have emphasized the role of "political leadership" or the Party, groups such as the Council Communists or the Johnson-Forest Tendency have shown how masses of workers have acted without such leadership, creating their own organization "spontaneously" and, where they have had the power, new organizational alternatives to capital, e.g., the Soviets, the German and Hungarian workers councils.

During periods inbetween such dramatic historical moments, the emphasis has been on the day to day struggles of workers. Early on the emphasis was on the day to day struggles of workers in production, on the shop floor within the factory or in the countryside. Later on the analysis focused more and more on struggles in reproduction. (See especially the section below on the Unwaged).

Within production working class self-activity has been seen both in workers resistance to the capitalist organization of work and in workers' ability to transform creatively their work and work environments. These kinds of continuing self-activity were not seen primarily as something "within" capital, but rather as autonomous activities constantly checking, rupturing and overthrowing capitalist management which could often, at best, react and adapt to the workers power.

In such ways, at all levels, this tradition reversed orthodox Marxism and critical theory's vision of the respective roles of labor and capital. Instead of capital the jauggernaut, we have capital as dead labor, shaped by living labor (the working class). Instead of labor as victim, we have labor evolving from living labor to labor as revolutionary subject capable of negating capital.

*Phil Romano and Ria Stone(R.Dunayevskaya) THE AMERICAN WORKER, Detroit: Facing Reality Publishing Company, 1946.Translated and published in France by SouB, and then in Italy (from the French) by Danilo Montaldi.


C.L.R.James, Grace C. Lee, and Pierre Chaulieu,"New Society: New People," FACING REALITY, 1958.

*Mario Tronti, "Lenin in England," (Classe Operaio, No.1, Jan.1964) Republished in OPERAI E CAPITALE, pp.89-95. Translated and published in WORKING CLASS AUTONOMY AND THE CRISIS by Red Notes and CSE,London, 1979.

*Mario Tronti, "Workers and Capital," TELOS 14 (Winter 1972):25- 62.(from OPERAI E CAPITALE, Einaudi,Turin 1966, 1971.)

Ferruccio Gambino, "Workers Struggles and the Development of Ford in Britain," BULLETIN OF THE CONFERENCE OF SOCIALIST ECONOMISTS, March 1976, pp.1-18.

Working class autonomy vis ˆ vis the unions

Labor unions have been fundamental forms of working class organization ever since capital generalized the imposition of work and created a class of people defined by their labor. As a rule they have been created by worker as organizational expressions and vehicles of their own struggles. The form and organization of labor unions have varied considerably over time, from professional craft unions to industrial unions to the "one big union" of the Wobblies, but they have always taken production as the point of organization --even if that organization has often reached beyond production into reproduction. Given this history, the issue of the role of the union in workers struggles has always been one of the most basic issues of working class politics.

Because orthodox Marxist-Leninist analysis has always seen day to day struggles as "economistic" and unable to rise to the level of "politics," i.e., to the level of the general interests of the class as a whole, it has always considered the labor union as the proper organizational vehicle for workers efforts at that level. Where the various orthodox communist parties have had the power, they have taken over unions and through the control of the union burearucracy tried to subordinate them to the current Party line and strategy.

Besides this left pressure, labor unions have also been subjected, throughout their history, to pressures from capital to transform these vehicles of struggle into business unions --organizations which confine their demands to those compatible with the growth of business. Those pressures have taken the concrete form of capitalist attempts to coopt union leaders either through appeal to their good judgement or through less honorable means. Where the labor union bureaucracy has accepted to confine workers demands in this way, sharp contradictions have often emerged between the rank and file workers and their union leadership. Such contradictions have involved daily guerrilla warfare as well as overt battles, e.g., wildcat strikes, between the workers and "their" union. Such guerrilla warfare often coincides with the day to day struggles of workers against capital --precisely to the degree that the union has become the labor relations arm of capital. Part of the autonomous Marxist tradition has consisted of giving expression to such autonomous working class struggles and showing how it constitutes a critique and going beyond of such organizational mediation.

Martin Glaberman, PUNCHING OUT, Detroit: Correspondence Publishing Committee, 1952 (Reprinted 1973 by Bewick Editions)

Martin Glaberman, ARTIE CUTS OUT, 1953.

*Martin Glaberman, UNION COMMITTEEMEN AND WILDCAT STRIKES, Detroit: Correspondence Publishing Committee,1955.


Working class autonomy vis a vis the political party

If the debate about the proper relationship between the union and the working class has been one of the perennial issues of working class politics, so too has a parallel debate about the political "party" form of organization. The autonomist Marxist position on this issue, which has developed against the background of the social democratic or Marxist- Leninist party as the dominant forms of the party, has generally been highly critical of all such delegation of power to any kind of central organization. The point of reference has been more Marx's negative views of conspiratorial Blanquism and his positive assessment of the Commune with its immediately revocable delegates, than his own practice within the First International. In Germany, the Rosa Luxemburg and later the Council Communists opposed both strict parliamentarianism of the German Social Democratic Party and the subordination of the workers councils to either a centralized Leninist communist party or the Comitern. In the US, as with many European syndicalists, the IWW expelled those who would subordinate its activities to electoral political parties. In Russia, as we have seen, there was fierce resistence to the subordination of the factory committees and the soviets to communist party control. Again in the US, those in the Johnson-Forest Tendency, while at first working within a Trotskyist party environment, came to reject the Leninist party altogether. In France, a similar history marked the development of Socialisme ou Barbarie. In Italy, many militants in the autonomist movement not only came from the socialist or communist parties but developed profound critiques of both the Leninist party and parliamentary politics.

Such critiques have involved both historical analyses of the actual political roles played by various "parties" throughout the history of working class struggle and theoretical meditations on the general question of working class organization. The Leninist/Boshevik-Stalinist nexus has, of course, a key point of reference in such studies.

For independent-minded European Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, the Left Opposition in Russia and the Council Communists, of course, opposition to Boshevik politics developed early, first in theory and then in practice. For others, however, for whom the Russia Revolution and subsequent events were faraway historical events, the trajectory of their critical intellectual assessment of working class experience has been different. First, a recognition of the reactionary and repressive character of the Stalinist party, coupled with the assertion of that party as a sharp break from Lenin's party which is seen as a valid expression of working class organization. Second, a critique of existing post-Stalinist Marxist- Leninist parties --such as those in the West. Third, a recognition of the contradictions within Bolshevism and the concept and practice of the Leninist party in any form. For the Trotskyists the critique of Stalin came early, for others it came only after his death in 1953 and the revelations of the XXth Congress. The tendency to preserve Lenin as a revolutionary saint, and his theory of working class organization as a guide to action, has been strong among virtually all those who didn't have to deal with him directly. The critique of the Leninist Party has often been developed quite separately from the critique of Lenin himself. What has survived longest of the veneration of Lenin is respect for his incredible ability to interpret every phenomenon in poitical terms and to grasp the ebb and flow of the class struggle. Since few make any pretense to clairyovance, they hardly blame Lenin for not forseeing the development of the Soviets. Instead they praise him for his ability ot grasp their importance and raise the cry "All Power to the Soviets!" Such respect has survived despite the rejection of his subsequent attempts to subordinate the Soviets to the party.

This critique of the party form has by no means meant a rejection of all forms of working class organization. On the contrary, it has been accompanied by an openness to and exploration of a wide variety of different organizational forms. Luxemburg became known for her embrace of the "spontaneous" creativity of the working class in its organizational response to obstacles in the class struggle. The IWW, of course, embraced the more or less syndicalist approach of what they called "trade unionism" --workers taking over society on the basis of factory organization as a base. Others embraced the council form of organization. Still others worked within the framework of what they called the "small working class organization" which was conceived, not as party, but as a forum for discussion within struggles that would eventually generate other, broader organizational solutions. Over time, with the proliferation of various kinds of organization, from free radio stations and underground newspapers, to squatters groups or women's groups, what has differentiated autonomist Marxists from other Marxists has been their openness to organizational variety and their refusal to attempt to subbordinate such variety to a single organization.

Rosa Luxemburg, "Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy," (1904) in Mary-Alice Waters (ed) ROSA LUXEMBURG SPEAKS, New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970, pp. 112-130.

C.L.R.James, Grace Lee, and Pierre Chaulieu, FACING REALITY, Detroit: Bewick, 1974 (Originally 1958)

Bologna, Sergio "Class Composition and the Theory of the Party at the Origin of the Workers' Council Movement," TELOS, #13, Fall 1972, pp. 4-27. Translated by Bruno Ramirez from OPERAI E STATO, Milano: Feltrinelli, 1972, pp. 13-46. (12pp)

The autonomy of different parts of the class from each other

This diversity brings us to the last essential aspect of the emphasis on working class autonomy: the tendency toward an acceptance of the necessity of autonomy among various sectors of the class. For some, this understanding lay at the basis of the critique of specific organizational forms such as the union or the party. Empirical observation of the union or party behavior, which by seeking to subbordinate particular struggles became irrelevant or repressive, along with theoretical analysis of the meaning of class and the evolution of class struggle led many to appreciate how maintaining the dynamism of grass roots struggles required autonomous organization.

Such appreciation has not come easily to the Marxist tradition. Capital has always ruled by dividing to conquer. Because of this "unity" has always been a key concept in the Marxist tradition --the unity of the working class in its struggle against capital. Indeed the central preoccupation of most politically active Marxists, including many of those I would associate with an "autonomist" tradition has been the building of inclusive, unified organizations capable of successfully confronting capitalÕs own totalizing unity. For example, despite her fervent opposition to LeninÕs centralized form of party organization, Rosa Luxemburg was equally insistent on the need for unified organizational forms. No where is this more obvious than in her attitude toward any kind of "national" autonomy within the working class movement. Opposing LeninÕs stated acceptance of national "self-determination," she wrote: "the Russian social democracy should not organize itself as a federative conglomerate of many national groups. It must rather become a single party for the entire empire." (Organizational Questions, op. cit., p. 117)

Perhaps most important in the early years of the building of this tradition, was the work of C.L.R. James. Born black in Trinidad, James was politically active not only in Trinidad but in England, in the United States and in the movement for African independence. Self-activity and autonomy were central to James' work in several areas: from the beginning, even before he became a Marxist, he was concerned with the autonomous struggles of black workers against colonialism, especially in the Caribbean and in Africa. Eventually this was extended to the observation of the necessary autonomy of women, students, peasants and so on.

Within the Italian New Left, as elsewhere in the 1960s, the recognition of sectoral autonomy mostly grew out of the struggles of women against patriarchal domination. In such circumstances there was simultaneous theoretical and organizational development as women pulled out of male dominated groups and developed their own autonomous organizations. The development of the theory of first black and then women's autonomy within working class struggle eventually led to its extension to the struggles of peasants in the Third World. (On both these aspects see the section below on the unwaged.)

C.L.R.James, THE CASE FOR WEST-INDIAN SELF GOVERNMENT, Hogarth Press, London, 1933. Reprinted in C.L.R. James, THE FUTURE IN THE PRESENT, Selected Writings Vol.I, Lawrence Hill, Westport 1977 and Allison & Busby, London 1977.pp.25-40

C.L.R. James, A HISTORY OF NEGRO REVOLT, London, 1936.


*Robert Hill, "In England, 1932-1938," URGENT TASKS, No.12, Summer 1981 (Special issue on C.L.R. James.)

*Walter Rodney, "The African Revolution," URGENT TASKS, No.12, Summer 1981 (Special issue on C.L.R. James.)

*C.L.R. James, "The Revolutionary Answer to the Negro Problem in the USA," 1938 (New York, 1948) Reprinted in C.L.R. James, THE FUTURE IN THE PRESENT SELECTED WRITINGS VOL.I, Lawrence Hill, Westport 1977 and Allison & Busby, London 1977.

*Dan Georgakis, "Young Detroit Radicals:1955-1965," URGENT TASKS, No.12, Summer 1981 (Special issue on C.L.R. James.)

George Rawick, "Personal Notes," [on C.L.R.James] URGENT TASKS, No.12, Summer 1981 (Special issue on C.L.R. James.)

Paul Lawrence Berman, "Facing Reality," URGENT TASKS, No.12, Summer 1981 (Special issue on C.L.R. James.)

George Rawick, FROM SUNDOWN TO SUNUP:THE MAKING OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY, Greenwood, Westport, 1972.Especially chapter on slave revolt.

IV.The Theory of the Mass Worker and the Social Factory

The theory of the mass worker and the social factory was implicit in the work of the Johnson-Forest tendency and SOCIALISME OU BARBARIE in the 1940s and 1950s. Although they did not call them "mass workers," much of the writing of the JFT, Correspondence and Facing Reality, because it dealt with auto workers in Detroit and elsewhere, was, de facto, about the workers at the heart of the new Fordist-Keynesian organization of society which had emerged in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States. Moreover, their work understood the key role of this new organization in a new stage of social relations --in both production and reproduction. It was this understanding which would lead them to look beyond the factory and recognize the larger social ramifications of this particular organization of production.

The theory of the mass worker and the social factory received explicit development by Italian workerist theorists in the early 1960s as they fought to elaborate a theory adequate to the growing struggles of the workers in the big Italian factories such as those of FIAT in Turin. For them, the key points of reference, besides the American and French work on which they drew, was that of Gramsci and what the Italian Communist Party had done with his work. Gramsci had elaborated a theory of Fordism in the US but had concluded that, in his day, Italy had not yet experienced such developments and that therefore communist political strategy must be based on the still minoritarian position of the industrial working class. This became part of the CPI's dogma and part of its rationale for the continuing subordination of working class interests to political alliances with other classes, especially the petty bourgeoisie. It was against this position that the operaistas argued that indeed Ford had come to Italy and that the associated class composition constituted the basis for an independent working class politics.

It was in the process of developing their analysis of the new class structure (new for Italy) that the operaistas developed their theories of "class composition" as a working class perspective on Marx's notion of "organic composition" of capital. This involved a re-examination of Marx, especially his work on technological change and the division of labor which theorists such as Romano Alquati and Raneiro Panzieri rethought in terms of the structure of working class power.

Martin Glaberman, PUNCHING OUT, Detroit: Correspondence Publishing Committee, 1952 (Reprinted 1973 by Bewick Editions)

*Raniero Panzieri, "The Capitalist Use of Machinery: Marx Versus the 'Objectivists,'" in Phil Slater (ed) OUTLINES OF A CRITIQUE OF TECHNOLOGY, (Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press) 1980. (Originally published as "Sull'uso capitalistico delle macchine nel neocapitalismo," QUADERNI ROSSI, 1961 and reprinted in R. Panzieri, LA RIPRESA DEL MARXISMO LENINISMO IN ITALIA, Sapere Ed. 1975.)

*Mario Tronti, "Social Capital," TELOS, #17, Fall 1973; from OPERAI E CAPITALE Turin: Einaudi, 1965, 1971.

Modern Times, "The Social Factory," FALLING WALL REVIEW, #5, Bristol, England, 1974.

*Guido Baldi, "Theses on the Mass Worker and Social Capital," RADICAL AMERICA, vol.6, No.3, May-June 1972.

Raniero Panzieri, "Surplus Value and Planning: Notes on the Reading of Capital," In THE LABOUR PROCESS AND CLASS STRATEGIES. CSE Pamphlet, No.1, London: Stage 1, 1976. (Originally in QUADERNI ROSSI, No. 4, 1964(?), pp. 257-288. Reprinted as Chapter 25 in R. Panzieri, LA RIPRESA DEL MARXISMO LENINISMO IN ITALIA, Milano: Sapere Ed. 1975, pp. 329-365.)

V. The Theory of the Wage and the Unwaged

While the development of the analysis of the wage as an expression of working class power grew out of the struggles of factory workers, the clearest analysis of lack of power associated with unwaged income was developed by women struggling in the sphere of reproduction. Both developments were at sharp variance with the traditional orthodox Marxist view of the wage. In the orthodox perspective the wage, first and formost, defined the working class, that is to say the concept and thus the politics of the working class was seen as applicable only to those who received a wage. Who constituted the working class? Those who received a wage. Everyone else in the "proletariat" or mass of oppressed within capitalism were expected to follow the lead of the working class which was conceived of as the most progressive class within capitalism. This was the kind of position which had underpinned the traditional attitude of Marxist toward peasants and peasant struggles. From Engels through the 2nd and 3rd Internationals to Mao, the peasants if they were active at all in the anti-capitalist struggle were supposed to follow the leadership of the working class. This was the generalized position despite Marx's analysis in Capital of the unwaged reserve army of labor as an integral part of the working class and despite his late work on Russia in which he had seen the peasant mir as perhaps providing the key to a direct transition to communism.

Where the working class was defined by the wage, and the object of revolutionary struggle was to overthrow the "wages system," it was clearly hard for most Marxists to see the wage as an expression of working class power. Wage struggles were often seen as either useless (Weston, whom Marx attacked in VALUE, PRICE AND PROFIT) or as pure instruments of capital (of exploitation for orthodox Marxists or of instrumentalization for critical theorists). More in the tradition of Marx than of the Marxist, the contributors to the tradition we are exploring here, came to see wage struggles as integral moments of a more general power struggle.

In Italy, the New Left operaistas expressing the demands of the mass workers in the big factorys not only articulated a theory of the wage as power, but also saw first in the demand for wage equalization and then in the demand for separating the wage from productivity, vehicles for undermining the capitalist use of the wage and strengthening working class power.

Beyond these struggles, Italian feminists elaborated both a theory of the role of unwaged work (especially the housework of women) within capital and then a political program based on that theory: the wages for housework campaign. They argued that most of the work of reproduction, from procreation to day to day repair work, was just that -- the reproduction of human life as labor power for capital. Therefore, they argued, women (and anyone else employed in such work) should be paid by capital for their work. That theory and program challenged the traditional Marxist subordination of unwaged to waged struggles, i.e., the demand that women go get jobs if they wanted to join the working class. Instead, they argued that the acquisition of a wage would both make women's work visible and undermine the division between the waged and unwaged which weakened the class.

The autonomous struggles of women emerged not only out of the male dominated working class movement, but also out of the male dominated student movement of the late 1960s. Despite strong traditional pressures to subbordinate student struggles to those of factory workers, there was also a powerful sense that student struggles could be validly fought on their own terrain of the school as one factory of reproduction. Later on with the emergence of crisis in the 1970s and the increasing number of students who also held part-time, often illegal, jobs, the development of those struggles would contribute to the battles of the "tribe of moles." (See section on Post-Fordist working class)

In time, this theory of the unwaged as an integral part of the working class was extended to the peasantry and used both to critique traditional Marxist attitudes and politics toward peasants and to argue for the importance of autonomous peasant struggles. We are not talking here about the lip service Lenin gave the peasants, or Mao's willingness to use them as the "main revolutionary force" under strict working class (i.e., Mao's) guidance. We are talking about a willingness to recognize the various ways in which peasants are not only an integral part of capital but how their struggles can rupture accumulation every bit as much as industrial workers' struggles can and how they are also capable of elaborating projects of self-valorization which go beyond capital. (On this last see the section below on self valorization). Sometimes such struggle involve the demand for wages, or higher wages, but often they have involved the rejection of the wage, as of development as a whole in favor of the independent construction of autonomous peasant communities.

This work on the wage, the waged and the unwaged has contributed to a rethinking and reanalysis not only of contemporary politics but of working class history. Some of the most interesting of that rethinking has built on the tradition of bottom up history made prominent through the work of such British Marxists as E.P. Thompson and Christopher Hill. Historically speaking one of the most interesting issues concerning the wage was its original generalization as the form of captialist command and of working class power. Recent work by Peter Linebaugh on crime and working class struggle in the 18th Century has shown how complex was the relationship between the rise of the working class and the wage. Just as Marx clearly differentiated between the formal subordination of labor to capital (in which labor is exploited but with no change in the forms of work) and its real subbordination (in which capital reorganizes labor), so Linebaugh shows how during the period in which capital was imposing rule, i.e., creating a working class, the wage was not only one form among many through which the value of labor power was reimbursed, but its role changed and grew within the context of working class struggle. The result of this historical work is to dethrone the wage as the sin qua non of the capital-labor relations, while at the same time showing its importance within the evolution of the class struggle. Another result has been to provide a Marxist theoretical basis for understanding "criminals" and prisoners as soldiers in the class war and their struggles as an integral part of that war, both yesterday and today.

A. The Wage and Working Class Power


B. Unwaged Housework and the Struggle for the Wage

Mariarosa Dalla Costa and Selma James THE POWER OF WOMEN AND THE SUBVERSION OF THE COMMUNITY Bristol, Falling Wall Press 1972. Reprinted in Ellen Malos (ed.) THE POLITICS OF HOUSEWORK, Allison & Busby, London 1980.

Selma James, "Women, the Unions and Work, or ....What is Not To Be Done," RADICAL AMERICA, 7, nos.4-5 (July-October 1973):51-72.

Selma James, SEX RACE AND CLASS, Bristol, Falling Wall Press, 1975.

Silvia Federici, "Wages Against Housework," (1975) Reprinted in Ellen Malos (ed.) THE POLITICS OF HOUSEWORK, Allison & Busby, London 1980.

Leopoldina Fortunati, "The Archana of Reproduction" (manuscript), originally L'ARCHANO DELLA RIPRODUZIONE, Venezia, Marsilio Editori, 1981.

C. Student Struggles and Unwaged Schoolwork


D. Unwaged Peasant Struggles Against Capital

Harry Cleaver, "The Internationalization of Capital and the Mode of Production in Agriculture," ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, March 27, 1976, pp.A2-A16.

Peter Linebaugh, "Karl Marx, the Theft of Wood and Working Class Composition," CRIME AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, Fall-Winter 1976.

Ann Lucas de Rouffignac, THE CONTEMPORARY PEASANTRY IN MEXICO: A CLASS ANALYSIS Praeger, New York, 1985, especially chapter 3.

Harry Cleaver, "The Uses of an Earthquake," MIDNIGHT NOTES #9, 1988.

E. Crime, the Wage and Working Class Struggle

Peter Linebaugh, "Crime and Industrialization: 18th Century Britain," Paper for the XII Congress of the International Political Science Association, Brazil, August 1982.

Douglas Hay, Peter Linebaugh et. al., ALBION'S FATAL TREE,

Ricardo Salvatore,

Peter Linebaugh, THE LONDON HANGED, New York: Penguin

VI. The Theory of the Post-Fordist Working Class


*Sergio Bologna, "The Tribe of Moles: Class Composition and the Party System in Italy," in WORKING CLASS AUTONOMY AND THE CRISIS. by Red Notes and CSE, London 1979, and in SEMIOTEXT(E) Vol.III, No.3, 1980.(originally in PRIMO MAGGIO, No.8, Spring 1977, pp.3-18).

*Antonio Negri, "Note on the Social Worker," (from DALL' OPERAIO MASSA ALL' OPERAIO SOCIALE, Multhipla Ed., 1979) Translated in WORKING CLASS AUTONOMY AND THE CRISIS. by Red Notes and CSE, London 1979.

*Antonio Negri, "Archaeology and Project: The Mass Worker and the Social Worker," in Toni Negri, REVOLUTION RETRIEVED: SELECTED WRITINGS ON MARX, KEYNES, CAPITALIST CRISIS AND NEW SOCIAL SUBJECTS, 1967-83, Red Notes, London 1987. (Originally written in 1981 in prison and published in Antonio Negri, MACCHINA TEMPO: ROMPICAPI LIBERAZIONE COSTITUZIONE, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1982.

*Phil Mattera, "Small is not Beautiful: Decentralized Production and the Underground Economy in Italy," RADICAL AMERICA Vol.14, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1980.

Jean-Paul de Guademar, "L'usine ŽclatŽe: les stratŽgies d'emploil ˆ distance face ˆ la crise du travail," LE MOVEMENT SOCIAL, No. 125, Oct.-DŽc. 1983, pp. 113-124.

Fergus Murray, "The Decentralisation of Production --the Decline of the Mass-Collective Worker?" CAPITAL & CLASS, #19, Spring 1983, pp. 74-99.

VII. The Theory of Working Class Self-Valorization

The emphasis on working class autonomy has often had, as one element of this perspective, a recognition of the "positive" side of that autonomy: the new content which people develop for their lives which they juxtapose to capitalist domination and for which they fight. This "positive" side can most easily be understood when contrasted with the "negative" side of working class struggle. The "negative" side is the struggle against the capitalist imposition of work and the various forms of domination with which it seeks to structure and control society. These are the things that workers do not want, that they resist, that they try to undermine and destroy. But their struggles are not purely negative; they are not simply a rejection of the way things are. They are almost always, simultaneously, either explicitly or implicitly, demands for new ways of being, new ways of working, or of living life outside of work in ways that go beyond the simple reproduction of labor power. The recognition of these positive directions that workers fight for is basic to the Marxian conception that if you want to know in which direction society is headed, you have only to analyse the directions of the struggles. Where is the new society? It is not out there, somewhere, in utopian imagination. It is here, now, in the content of the struggles themselves. What will post-capitalist society be like? Dream if you like, but if you want to understand other peoples' dreams analyse their struggles, see in what directions they are elaborating the future today. In the 1950s those writing within this tendency spoke of "the invading socialist society" and of the current conflict between the capitalist mode of production and the emerging socialist mode of production being elaborated on the shop floor and in the streets. Later on Antonio Negri would call this a struggle for new ways of "self-valorization" and would speak of the "immanence of communism." The language changed, but the ideas were basically the same.

*C.L.R. James, Grace C. Lee, and Pierre Chaulieu, FACING REALITY: THE NEW SOCIETY... WHERE TO LOOK FOR IT, HOW TO BRING IT CLOSER. A STATEMENT FOR OUR TIME, Bewick/Ed, 1974. (Originally published by the Correspondence Publishing Committee in 1958.) Especially Chapter V: "New Society: New People" and Chapter VII: "What to Do and How to Do it."

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guatarri, ANTI OEDIPUS: CAPITALISM AND SCHIZOPHRENIA,(ANTI-L'OEDIPE, 1972) University of Minnesota Press, Minn, 1983.

*Felix Guattari, "Molecular Revolution and Class Struggle," in F.Guattari, THE MOLECULAR REVOLUTION: PSYCHIATRY AND POLITICS, (1977) Penguin translation 1984.

*Antonio Negri, DOMINATION AND SABOTAGE (IL DOMINIO E IL SABOTAGGIO, Feltrinelli, Milano 1978) Translated in WORKING CLASS AUTONOMY AND THE CRISIS. by Red Notes and CSE, London 1979.

*Antonio Negri,MARX BEYOND MARX (MARX OLTRE MARX), Feltrinelli, Milano, 1979) Translated by Harry Cleaver et al. and published in English by Bergin and Garvey, 1984, then by Autonomedia.

*Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, "Rhizomes," in G.Deleuze and F. Guattari, ON THE LINE, Foreign Agent Series, Semiotext(e), New York, 1983, and as the first chapter in THOUSAND PLATEAUS (MILLES PLATEAUX).

*Ann Lucas de Rouffignac, THE CONTEMPORARY PEASANTRY IN MEXICO: A CLASS ANALYSIS Praeger, New York, 1985, especially chapter 4, "Peasant Struggle, Self-Valorization and the Disruption of Capital."

*Harry Cleaver,"Development or Autonomy," paper presented to a Conference in Mexico City on Mexico al Filo del Siglo XXI, November 1985.

*Harry Cleaver, "Marginality and Self-Valorization," paper presented to a conference on the Political Economy of the Margins, University of Toronto, May 1988. Published in Spanish in Mexico City in EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, August 1988.

VIII. Working Class Struggle and Capitalist Crisis

Derivative of the understanding of the autonomous character of workers struggles within and against capitalism is the view of "crisis" in capitalism as primarily concerning the rupture of capital's power to command labor. Capitalist crisis is not just understood as a breakdown, either partial and temporary or total and permanent, in the processes of accumulation brought on by the "internal" logic of capitalism (e.g., that of competition) but is seen rather as that moment in the class struggle when working class self activity undermines capitalist control. This perspective reverses the usual, orthodox Marxist way of looking at crisis in which some one or another of what are called capital's "internal contradictions" lead to a failure in its ability to reproduce itself. One kind of orthodox theory was built around one version or another of "underconsumptionism" in which the tendency of the capitalists to pay workers less wages than the value of their product limited the market for the final product and led to overproduction. Here the capitalists fell into crisis because of their own profit-maximizing, wage limiting behavior. And any capitalist who paid more than average wages would by ruined by the competition of those who paid the average or less.

Against such theories various "autonomist Marxists" have generally argued the centrality of the class relations of struggle within capitalism. This was true, for example, of the Council Communists and the Johnson- Forest Tendency which attacked Stalinist underconsumptionist theories of crisis, arguing that the Stalinists had shifted the focus of crisis theory from production to circulation as part of their rationalization of the continuation of capitalist relations of production in Russia after the revolution. One vehicle for this attack was the work of Rosa Luxemburg which had set out one of the clearest expositions of a Marxist theory of crisis focused on problems of "realization" of surplus value through the sale of the product. These critiques of Luxemburg were spelled out despite considerable sympathy for other aspects of Luxemburg's work. For example, the Council Communists were very sympathetic to her critiques of Lenin and of Bolshevik centralism. Similarly, the Johnson-Forest authors indentified with her efforts to gear working class organization to working class sponteneity despite their own early Leninism.

Paul Mattick, "Luxemburg versus Lenin," Pt. I, MODERN MONTHLY, September 1935; Pt. II, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE, Vol. II, No. 8, July 1936, pp. 17-35. These two articles were reprinted as one, in Paul Mattick, ANTI-BOLSHEVIK COMMUNISM, White Plains: M.E.Sharpe, 1978, pp.19-48.

F. Forest [R. Dunayevskaya], "Luxemburg's Theory of Accumulation," Pt. I, THE NEW INTERNATIONAL, Vol. XII, No. 4, April 1946, Part II,THE NEW INTERNATIONAL, Vol. XII, No. 5, May 1946, plus "Letter on Luxemburg," THE NEW INTERNATIONAL, Vol. XIII, No.4, April 1947. The bulk of these artricles were slightly reworked and published as "Marx's and Luxemburg's Theories of Capital, its crises and its Inevitable Downfall," in R.Dunayevskaya, ROSA LUXEMBURG, WOMEN'S LIBERATION AND MARX'S PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1982, pp.31-50.

C.L.R.James (with Raya Dunayevskaya and Grace Lee) STATE CAPITALISM AND WORLD REVOLUTION (1950)

Antonio Negri, "Marx on the Cycle and on the Crisis," in Toni Negri, REVOLUTION RETRIEVED: SELECTED WRITINGS ON MARX, KEYNES, CAPITALIST CRISIS AND NEW SOCIAL SUBJECTS, 1967-83, Red Notes, London 1987(forthcoming)(originally 1968)

Antonio Negri, "Crisis of the Planner State: Communism and Revolutionary Organizations," in Toni Negri, REVOLUTION RETRIEVED: SELECTED WRITINGS ON MARX, KEYNES, CAPITALIST CRISIS AND NEW SOCIAL SUBJECTS, 1967-83, Red Notes, London 1987(forthcoming). Originally "Crisi dello Stato-Plano: comunismo e organizzazione rivoluzionaria," POTERE OPERAIO No.45, September 25, 1971.

Antonio Negri, "John M. Keynes and the Capitalist Theory of the State in 1929," in Toni Negri, REVOLUTION RETRIEVED: SELECTED WRITINGS ON MARX, KEYNES, CAPITALIST CRISIS AND NEW SOCIAL SUBJECTS, 1967-83, Red Notes, London 1987(forthcoming) (originally in A.Negri,OPERAI E STATO, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1972.

Guido Viale, "Class Struggle and European Unity," (1972) Translated and published in Toronto Collective, AUTONOMOUS STRUGGLES AND THE CAPITALIST CRISIS, Toronto, Canada, 1973.

Potero Operaio, "Italy 1973: Workers' Struggles and the Capitalist Crisis,"RADICAL AMERICA ,7, No.2 (March- April 1973):15-32.

Sergio Bologna, "Moneta e Crisi:Marx Corrispondente della NEW YORK DAILY TRIBUNE, 1856-57," in S. Bologna, P. Carpignano and A. Negri, CRISI E ORGANIZZAZIONE OPERAIA, Feltrinelli, Milano 1974.

Antonio Negri, "Theses on the Crisis," (Appendix 2 in "The working class party against Work," in CRISI E ORGANIZZAZIONE OPERAIA, Feltrinelli, Milan, September 1974, pp.166-183. Translated and published in WORKING CLASS AUTONOMY AND THE CRISIS by Red Notes and CSE,London, 1979.

Paolo Carpignano, "U.S. Class Composition in the Sixties," Zerowork, #1, 1975.

Mario Montano, "Notes on the International Crisis," Zerowork #1, 1975.

Peter Linebaugh and Peter Taylor, "Crisis in the Auto Sector,"ZEROWORK #1 (1975)

Peter Taylor"'The Sons of Bitches Just Won't Work:' Postal Workers Against the State," ZEROWORK #1 (1975)

William Cleaver, "Wildcats in the Appalachian Coal Fields," Zerowork #1, 1975. [pdf version] Reprinted in Midnight Notes Collective, Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973- 1992, Boston: Autonomedia, 1992, pp. 169-183.

George Caffentzis, "Throwing Away the Ladder," Zerowork #1, 1975.

Bruno Ramirez, "The Working Class Struggle Against the Crisis: Self Reduction Struggles in Italy," ZEROWORK #1 (1975)

Robby Guttman and Christian Marazzi, "The Crisis of Social Capital, Money, State and the Labor Process,"BULLETIN OF THE CONFERENCE OF SOCIALIST ECONOMISTS, July 1976.

Peter F. Bell,"Marxist Theory, Class Struggle and the Crisis of Capitalism," in THE SUBTLE ANATOMY OF CAPITALISM, ed.Jesse Schwartz, pp.170-194. Santa Monica:Goodyear, 1977.

Harry Cleaver, *"Food, Famine and the International Crisis," from Zerowork #2, Fall 1977

Philip Mattera, "National Liberation, Socialism and The Struggle Against Work: The Case of Vietnam," ZEROWORK #2 (1977)

Christian Marazzi, "Money in the World Crisis: The New Basis of Capitalist Power," ZEROWORK #2 (1977)

Donna Demac and Philip Mattera, "Developing and Underdeveloping New York: The 'Fiscal Crisis' and the Imposition of Austerity," ZEROWORK #2 (1977)

Yann Moulier and Pierre Ewenzyck, "Immigration: The Blockage of Mobility in the Mediterranean Basin," originally published as Tom Sawyer, "Immigration: le blocage de la mobilitŽ autour du bassin mŽditerranŽen," CRITIQUES DE L'ECONOMIE POLITIQUE, Nouvelle SŽrie, No. 3, Septembre 1978, pp. 27-65.

Peter F. Bell and Harry Cleaver, "Marx's Crisis Theory as a Theory of Class Struggle," in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, vol.5, JAI Press, 1982, pp.189-261.

Midnight Notes, Strange Victories: The Anti-Nuclear Movement In The US and Europe, 1979. Part 1, Part 2. Reprinted in Midnight Notes Collective, Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973-1992, Boston: Autonomedia, 1992, pp. 193- 214.

George Caffentzis, "The Work/Energy Crisis And The Apocalypse", [1981] [pdf version] , reprinted in Midnight Notes Collective, Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973-1992, Boston: Autonomedia, 1992.

Riot Not to Work Collective, WE WANT TO RIOT, NOT TO WORK: THE 1981 BRIXTON UPRISINGS, London, 1982.

Harry Cleaver, "Karl Marx: Economist or Revolutionary?" in Suzanne W. Helburn and David F. Bramhall (eds) MARX, SCHUMPETER & KEYNES: A CENTENARY CELEBRATION OF DISSENT, (M.E.Sharpe, Armonk, 1986).

*Joseph Ricciardi,"Credit and the Revolutions of 1848," from J.M.Ricciardi, ESSAYS ON THE ROLE OF MONEY AND FINANCE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, 1985.