Workers’ Inquiry: A Genealogy

viewpoint ill (660 x 300)3

Exact and Positive Knowledge: Marx’s Questionnaire

In 1880, La Revue social­is­te asked an aging Karl Marx to draft a ques­tion­naire to be cir­cu­lat­ed among the French work­ing class. Called “A Work­ers’ Inquiry,” it was a list of exact­ly 101 detailed ques­tions, inquir­ing about every­thing from meal times to wages to lodg­ing.1 On a closer look, there seems to be a pro­gres­sion in the line of ques­tion­ing. The first quar­ter or so ask seem­ing­ly dis­in­ter­est­ed ques­tions about the trade, the com­po­si­tion of the work­force employed at the firm, and the gen­er­al con­di­tions of the shop, while the final quar­ter gen­er­al­ly shifts to more explic­it­ly polit­i­cal ques­tions about oppres­sion, “resis­tance asso­ci­a­tions,” and strikes.

The ques­tion­naire began with a few prefa­to­ry reflec­tions on the project as a whole. The­se fif­teen or so lines basi­cal­ly amount­ed to a sin­gle prin­ci­ple: learn­ing from the work­ing class itself. Only the work­ing class could provide mean­ing­ful infor­ma­tion on its own exis­tence, just as only the work­ing class itself could build the new world. But behind this sim­ple call lay a num­ber of com­plex moti­va­tions, objec­tives, and inten­tions, mak­ing work­ers’ inquiry – this seem­ing­ly mod­est desire to learn from the work­ers – a high­ly ambigu­ous, mul­ti­fac­eted, and inde­ter­mi­nate project from the very start.

At its most rudi­men­ta­ry lev­el, work­ers’ inquiry was to be the empir­i­cal study of work­ers, a com­mon­ly neglect­ed object of inves­ti­ga­tion at the time. “Not a sin­gle gov­ern­ment, whether monar­chy or bour­geois repub­lic, has yet ven­tured to under­take a seri­ous inquiry into the posi­tion of the French work­ing class,” Marx lament­ed. “But what a num­ber of inves­ti­ga­tions have been under­tak­en into crises – agri­cul­tur­al, finan­cial, indus­tri­al, com­mer­cial, polit­i­cal!”

Since the­se oth­er forms of inves­ti­ga­tion – like those end­less gov­ern­ment inquiries into this or that cri­sis – sim­ply could not pro­duce any real knowl­edge of the work­ing class, some new form of inves­ti­ga­tion had to be devel­oped. Its objec­tive, as those hun­dred ques­tions reveal, would be to amass as much fac­tu­al mate­ri­al about work­ers as pos­si­ble. The goal, Marx wrote, should be to acquire “an exact and pos­i­tive knowl­edge of the con­di­tions in which the work­ing class – the class to whom the future belongs – works and moves.”

Of course, even in Marx’s time, health inspec­tors and oth­ers had already begun to under­take this kind of inves­ti­ga­tion into the world of the work­ing class. But not only were the­se offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tions unsys­tem­at­ic and par­tial, they treat­ed work­ers as mere objects of study, in the man­ner of the soil and seeds of those well-inves­ti­gat­ed agri­cul­tur­al crises. What set worker’s inquiry apart from the­se oth­er empir­i­cal stud­ies was the belief that the work­ing class itself knew more about cap­i­tal­ist exploita­tion than any­one else. It is the “work­ers in town and coun­try,” Marx thought, who “alone can describe with full knowl­edge the mis­for­tunes from which they suf­fer.”

With this brief inter­ven­tion, Marx estab­lished a fun­da­men­tal epis­te­mo­log­i­cal chal­lenge. What was the rela­tion­ship between the work­ers’ knowl­edge of their exploita­tion, and the sci­en­tific analy­sis of the “laws of motion” of cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety? In Cap­i­tal, he devot­ed many pages to doc­u­ment­ing the labor process, yet this seemed to be part of a log­i­cal expo­si­tion which began with the crit­i­cal expo­si­tion of val­ue, an abstract cat­e­go­ry of bour­geois polit­i­cal econ­o­my. He nev­er­the­less main­tained in his 1873 after­word that “In so far as such a cri­tique rep­re­sents a class, it can only rep­re­sent the class whose his­tor­i­cal task is the over­throw of the cap­i­tal­ist mode of pro­duc­tion and the final abo­li­tion of all class­es – the pro­le­tari­at.”2 Louis Althusser, in his famous Pref­ace to the French trans­la­tion, sug­gest­ed that this meant that Cap­i­tal could only be under­stood from a specif­i­cal­ly pro­le­tar­i­an view­point, since that is “the only view­point which makes vis­i­ble the real­i­ty of the exploita­tion of wage labour pow­er, which con­sti­tutes the whole of cap­i­tal­ism.”3 Yet Marx’s own view remains unclear. Was work­ers’ inquiry a means of access­ing the pro­le­tar­i­an view­point? Was it sim­ply the work­ers’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in gen­er­at­ing a uni­ver­sal knowl­edge?

What is abun­dant­ly clear is that Marx had a high esti­ma­tion of the autonomous activ­i­ty of the work­ing class. Not only would work­ers provide knowl­edge about the nature of cap­i­tal­ism, they would be the only ones who could over­throw it: only the work­ers in town and coun­try, “and not sav­iors sent by prov­i­dence, can ener­get­i­cal­ly apply the heal­ing reme­dies for the social ills which they are prey.” This prac­tice of work­ers’ inquiry, then, implied a cer­tain con­nec­tion between pro­le­tar­i­an knowl­edge and pro­le­tar­i­an pol­i­tics. Social­ists would begin by learn­ing from the work­ing class about its own mate­ri­al con­di­tions. Only then would they be able to artic­u­late strate­gies, com­pose the­o­ries, and draft pro­grams. Inquiry would there­fore be the nec­es­sary first step in artic­u­lat­ing a his­tor­i­cal­ly appro­pri­ate social­ist project.

The prac­tice of dis­sem­i­nat­ing the inquiry also rep­re­sent­ed a step towards orga­niz­ing this project, by estab­lish­ing direct links with work­ers. “It is not essen­tial to reply to every ques­tion,” Marx wrote. “The name of the work­ing man or wom­an who is reply­ing will not be pub­lished with­out spe­cial per­mis­sion but the name and address should be given so that if nec­es­sary we can send com­mu­ni­ca­tion.” For some, this attempt to forge real con­tacts with the work­ers was in fact a gen­uine inten­tion of the project.

Of course, Marx men­tions noth­ing about build­ing orga­ni­za­tions in this short arti­cle. How­ev­er, he would lat­er indi­cate that research and orga­ni­za­tion had a close rela­tion­ship. In 1881, just a year after pen­ning this ques­tion­naire, Marx received a let­ter from a young social­ist who want­ed to know what he thought about the recent calls to refound the Inter­na­tion­al Workingmen’s Asso­ci­a­tion. Marx revealed that he was opposed to this project. The “crit­i­cal junc­ture” for such an asso­ci­a­tion had not arrived, and attempt­ing to form one would be “not mere­ly use­less but harm­ful,” since it would not be “relat­ed to the imme­di­ate given con­di­tions in this or that par­tic­u­lar nation.”4

So any orga­ni­za­tion had to be tied to con­crete his­tor­i­cal con­di­tions. We can con­clude from Marx’s enthu­si­as­tic respon­se to La Revue social­is­te that he grant­ed a strate­gic role to research; in this speci­fic con­junc­ture, inquiry was a more appro­pri­ate mea­sure than launch­ing an orga­ni­za­tion, and was per­haps even its pre­con­di­tion.

Marx died a few years after this first stab at inquiry, nev­er receiv­ing a sin­gle respon­se. But the project would have a remark­able after­life in the fol­low­ing cen­tu­ry. As we pull away from Marx’s orig­i­nal blue­print to sur­vey the much longer his­to­ry of work­ers’ inquiry, it is hard not to notice the remark­able insta­bil­i­ty of this prac­tice. Though near­ly every exam­ple touch­es the coor­di­nates first devel­oped by Marx, inquiry has been pol­y­semic and con­tra­dic­to­ry. This intro­duc­tion will sur­vey its devel­op­ment as a way of inves­ti­gat­ing its under­ly­ing ques­tions.

Raising Consciousness: The Johnson-Forest Tendency

While fig­ures like Pier­re Nav­ille and Simone Weil had ear­lier pub­lished firsthand accounts of fac­to­ry life, Marx’s project was only tru­ly rein­car­nat­ed in 1947, when the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy released a short pam­phlet called The Amer­i­can Work­er. Named after the pseu­do­nyms of its two prin­ci­pal the­o­rists, CLR James (J.R. John­son), the Trinida­di­an author of The Black Jacobins, and Raya Dunayevskaya (Fred­die Forest), Leon Trotsky’s one­time assis­tant, the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy first emerged in 1941 as an oppo­si­tion­al cur­rent with­in the Trot­sky­ist Work­ers’ Par­ty. In 1947, the year they spon­sored their first inquiry, this mar­gin­al though respect­ed cur­rent left the WP over what was then known as the “Negro Ques­tion.” While the Work­ers’ Par­ty argued for a sin­gle, broad, mul­tira­cial move­ment orga­nized under the slo­gan “Black and White, Unite and Fight,” the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy coun­tered that the black com­mu­ni­ty had its own speci­fic needs, which could not be peremp­to­ri­ly sub­sumed under such a homog­e­niz­ing move­ment, and along with oth­er oppressed minori­ties should strug­gle for its own auton­o­my.5

In 1951, after break­ing from Trot­sky­ism alto­geth­er, the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy formed Cor­re­spon­dence, with a news­pa­per of the same name.6 Cor­re­spon­dence, whose first issue was released that Novem­ber, was to be a new kind of paper. Prin­ci­pal­ly writ­ten, edit­ed, and dis­trib­ut­ed by work­ers them­selves, it was intend­ed to serve as a forum in which work­ers could share their own expe­ri­ences. Reflect­ing the Tendency’s con­tin­ued empha­sis on the pri­ma­cy of autonomous needs, each issue was delib­er­ate­ly divid­ed into four sec­tions – for fac­to­ry work­ers, blacks, youth, and wom­en – so that each sec­tor of the broad­er work­ing class would have its own inde­pen­dent space to dis­cuss what con­cerned them most. The hope was that in writ­ing about their lives, work­ers would come to see that their prob­lems were not per­son­al, but social. A 1955 edi­to­ri­al titled “Gripes and Griev­ances” stat­ed the pur­pose of the paper: “When mil­lions of work­ers are express­ing the same gripe about their job, the fore­man, the union, and the com­pa­ny, it is no longer a gripe, it becomes a social prob­lem. That gripe or griev­ance no longer affects just this or that indi­vid­u­al, it affects all of soci­ety.”7 The objec­tive of the paper, then, was to make peo­ple real­ize the uni­ver­sal­i­ty of their seem­ing­ly par­tic­u­lar expe­ri­ences, by pro­vid­ing a space where they could be dis­sem­i­nat­ed. Draw­ing an anal­o­gy to polio, which, they claimed, was once con­sid­ered a per­son­al prob­lem before being accept­ed as a social con­cern, the edi­tors argued that the whole point of Cor­re­spon­dence was to change pub­lic atti­tudes on deci­sive ques­tions. The goal of the work­ers’ paper, to put it anoth­er way, was to raise con­scious­ness.

This news­pa­per was in many ways a log­i­cal con­tin­u­a­tion of the Tendency’s ear­lier efforts at inquiry. The first and per­haps most famous of the­se was The Amer­i­can Work­er. Grace Lee Bog­gs, a co-author of the pam­phlet, recalls that it first began as a diary. When Phil Singer, an auto work­er employed in a New Jer­sey GM plant, began to dis­cuss the frus­tra­tions of the rank and file at the fac­to­ry, CLR James sug­gest­ed that he write his thoughts down in a diary.8 Sec­tions of it were lat­er assem­bled into a coher­ent piece, and paired with a the­o­ret­i­cal essay by Grace Lee Bog­gs. The first part of the pam­phlet, now attrib­ut­ed to Paul Romano, Singer’s pseu­do­nym, became a kind of self-reflex­ive ethno­graph­ic inves­ti­ga­tion into the con­di­tions of pro­le­tar­i­an life in post­war Amer­i­ca. The sec­ond part, attrib­ut­ed to Ria Stone, Boggs’s par­ty name, con­scious­ly drew on the con­crete expe­ri­ences doc­u­ment­ed in the first part in order to the­o­rize the con­tent of social­ism in a world changed by automa­tion, the assem­bly line, and semi-skilled labor.

When Social­is­me ou Bar­barie lat­er trans­lat­ed the pam­phlet into French, they called it the “first of its gen­re.”9 A work­er was describ­ing, in his own voice and explic­it­ly for oth­er work­ers, his con­di­tions of exploita­tion in a way that the­o­rized the pos­si­bil­i­ty of its strate­gic over­throw.10 Singer’s account rep­re­sent­ed both research into the changes in the labor process, as well as a polit­i­cal prac­tice aimed at rais­ing the con­scious­ness of his co-work­ers. He steadi­ly moved from sta­t­ic descrip­tions of exploita­tion in the fac­to­ry to a dynam­ic con­sid­er­a­tion of the new forms of strug­gle that had emerged out of those forms of exploita­tion. Sur­vey­ing the con­tra­dic­tions in the work­place, the var­i­ous points of con­tes­ta­tion, and signs of pro­le­tar­i­an dis­gust with man­age­ment, bureau­cra­cy, and even unions, Singer point­ed to the wild­cat strike, with work­ers’ self-man­age­ment as its con­tent, as the new form of strug­gle in the post­war peri­od.

While Phil Singer pro­vid­ed the first exam­ple of this new kind of work­ers’ inquiry, Grace Lee Bog­gs laid out the John­son-Forest Tendency’s the­o­ret­i­cal prob­lem­at­ic. She drew heav­i­ly on a pas­sage from Cap­i­tal that described how the “par­tial­ly devel­oped indi­vid­u­al,” who was restrict­ed to “one spe­cial­ized social func­tion,” had to be replaced in large-scale indus­try by the “total­ly devel­oped indi­vid­u­al” who could adapt to vary­ing forms of labor.11 Read­ing this in light of Marx’s ear­lier works, prin­ci­pal­ly the Eco­nom­ic and Philo­soph­i­cal Man­u­scripts of 1844, which Bog­gs her­self was the first to trans­late into Eng­lish, she took this to mean that mod­ern indus­try in post­war Amer­i­ca had now real­ized the com­plete alien­ation of human nature.

Accord­ing to Bog­gs, cap­i­tal­ism was to be under­stood as the pro­gres­sive alien­ation of humanity’s nat­u­ral pow­ers into the things it pro­duces. Even­tu­al­ly, how­ev­er, this process will reach a point where all of human­i­ty, all of its social essence, has been ful­ly alien­at­ed into the means of pro­duc­tion. But this thor­ough­go­ing dehu­man­iza­tion of the indi­vi­ual, she argues, is at the same time the poten­tial human­iza­tion of the world in its entire­ty. It is at that point that the objec­tive con­di­tions will final­ly be ripe to reclaim those pow­ers, recov­er human essence, and defin­i­tive­ly recon­sti­tute the indi­vid­u­al as a uni­ver­sal being. In her words, “Abstract labor reach­es its most inhu­man depths in machine pro­duc­tion. But at the same time, it is only machine pro­duc­tion which lays the basis for the fullest human devel­op­ment of con­crete labor.”12

“The essen­tial con­tent of pro­duc­tive activ­i­ty today is the coop­er­a­tive form of the labor process,” Bog­gs con­clud­ed. In “the trans­for­ma­tion of the instru­ments of labor into instru­ments of labor only usable in com­mon” and “the economis­ing of all means of pro­duc­tion by their use as the means of pro­duc­tion of com­bined, social­ized labor,” cap­i­tal­ist pro­duc­tion had reached the point where it was now implic­it­ly already social­ist. How­ev­er, the real­iza­tion of this implic­it social­ism was blocked:

The bour­geoisie main­tains a fet­ter on this essen­tial­ly social activ­i­ty by iso­lat­ing indi­vid­u­als from one anoth­er through com­pe­ti­tion, by sep­a­rat­ing the intel­lec­tu­al pow­ers of pro­duc­tion from the man­u­al labor, by sup­press­ing the cre­ative orga­ni­za­tion­al tal­ents of the broad mass­es, by divid­ing the world up into spheres of influ­ence.

This con­flict between the invad­ing social­ist soci­ety and the bour­geois fet­ters pre­vent­ing its emer­gence is part of the dai­ly expe­ri­ence of every work­er.”13

Inter­est­ing­ly, this con­cept had emerged in a pam­phlet that James, Dunayevskaya, and Bog­gs wrote the same year, with the title The Invad­ing Social­ist Soci­ety – a polemic again­st Trot­sky­ists who did not share their view that the USSR rep­re­sent­ed a new form of cap­i­tal­ism. The pam­phlet elab­o­rates on some of the the­o­ret­i­cal pre­sup­po­si­tions of The Amer­i­can Work­er, in which Bog­gs had defend­ed “the dis­tinc­tion between abstract labor for val­ue and con­crete labor for human needs.” For Bog­gs, Marx’s def­i­n­i­tion of “val­ue pro­duc­tion” was “pro­duc­tion which expand­ed itself through degra­da­tion and dehu­man­iza­tion of the work­er to a frag­ment of a man,” which in its use of machin­ery “degrades to abstract labor the liv­ing work­er which it employs.” Con­crete labor was instead direct­ed towards needs, “the labor in which man real­izes his basic human need for exer­cis­ing his nat­u­ral and acquired pow­ers.”14

In The Invad­ing Social­ist Soci­ety, the authors argued that val­ue pro­duc­tion was clear­ly at work in Rus­sian “state cap­i­tal­ism,” just as it was in the Unit­ed States, and they elab­o­rat­ed on the “dual char­ac­ter” of labor Bog­gs had described in the oth­er pam­phlet:

Labor’s fun­da­men­tal, its eter­nal­ly nec­es­sary func­tion in all soci­eties, past, present and future, was to cre­ate use-val­ues. Into this organ­ic func­tion of all labor, cap­i­tal­ist pro­duc­tion imposed the con­tra­dic­tion of pro­duc­ing val­ue, and more par­tic­u­lar­ly sur­plus-val­ue. With­in this con­tra­dic­tion is con­tained the neces­si­ty for the divi­sion of soci­ety into direct pro­duc­ers (work­ers) and rulers of soci­ety, into man­u­al and intel­lec­tu­al labor­ers.

The man­age­ri­al rev­o­lu­tion, in this con­cep­tion, was sim­ply an expres­sion of val­ue pro­duc­tion and the class divi­sion between man­u­al and intel­lec­tu­al labor. If this class divi­sion and this kind of alien­at­ing labor process could be observed in Rus­sia, there was only one con­clu­sion: the state bureau­cra­cy extract­ed sur­plus val­ue from Rus­sian work­ers, and was in fact a cap­i­tal­ist class.

The pro­le­tari­at, they went on to argue, had been dis­abused of all the illu­sions of bureau­crat­ic van­guards, which had sim­ply insti­tut­ed a new form of cap­i­tal­ism, and reformism, which lim­it­ed itself to con­test­ing the dis­tri­b­u­tion of sur­plus-val­ue. Now the pro­le­tari­at had “drawn the ulti­mate con­clu­sion”: “The revolt is again­st val­ue pro­duc­tion itself.” The invad­ing social­ist soci­ety, for James, Dunayevskaya, and Bog­gs, could be observed in this real­iza­tion.15

The polit­i­cal moti­va­tion of this the­o­ry may have been under­stand­able, but it led the group to use Marx’s cat­e­gories in a way that dis­solved their his­tor­i­cal speci­fici­ty. Two decades ear­lier I.I. Rubin, at the close of a peri­od of rel­a­tive­ly free debate in the Sovi­et Union, had explained in a lec­ture at the Insti­tute for Eco­nom­ics in Moscow that a “con­cept of labour which lacks all the fea­tures which are char­ac­ter­is­tic of its social organ­i­sa­tion in com­mod­i­ty pro­duc­tion, can­not lead to the con­clu­sion which we seek from the Marx­i­an stand­point.” In his elab­o­ra­tion of Marx’s con­cepts Rubin asked direct­ly whether the val­ue-form could be observed in a planned econ­o­my, in which some social organ had to equate labor which pro­duced dif­fer­ent things and was under­tak­en by dif­fer­ent indi­vid­u­als. While this social equa­tion was often described as “abstrac­tion” in some gen­er­al sense, Rubin dis­tin­guished it from Marx’s con­cept of abstract labor. In all his­tor­i­cal epochs, Rubin con­ced­ed, human beings have engaged in a phys­i­o­log­i­cal expen­di­ture of effort to repro­duce their con­di­tions of exis­tence. But Marx’s val­ue the­o­ry set out to explain cer­tain his­tor­i­cal­ly speci­fic char­ac­ter­is­tics of cap­i­tal­ist com­mod­i­ty-pro­duc­ing soci­eties. In such soci­eties the labor of indi­vid­u­als, as con­crete labor which pro­duces use-val­ues, is not “direct­ly reg­u­lat­ed by the soci­ety” – in con­trast to a soci­ety in which social equa­tion is done on the basis of the planned allo­ca­tion of those use-val­ues.16

In com­mod­i­ty-pro­duc­ing soci­eties, labor is only social­ly equat­ed when the prod­ucts of indi­vid­u­al labor­ers are “assim­i­lat­ed with the prod­ucts of all the oth­er com­mod­i­ty pro­duc­ers, and the labour of a speci­fic indi­vid­u­al is thus assim­i­lat­ed with the labour of all the oth­er mem­bers of the soci­ety and all the oth­ers kinds of labour.” And cru­cial­ly, this social equa­tion only hap­pens “through the equa­tion of the prod­ucts of labour”; labor “only takes the form of abstract labour, and the prod­ucts of labour the form of val­ues, to the extent that the pro­duc­tion process assumes the social form of com­mod­i­ty pro­duc­tion, i.e. pro­duc­tion based on exchange.” When com­mod­i­ty own­ers in cap­i­tal­ist soci­eties engage in pro­duc­tion, they do so seek­ing to “trans­form their pro­duct into mon­ey and thus also trans­form their pri­vate and con­crete labour into social and abstract labour,” since they depend on the mar­ket for their con­di­tions of exis­tence. It is through the medi­a­tion of the mar­ket that the­se pri­vate labor expen­di­tures take on a social form.17

From the van­tage point of Rubin’s inter­ven­tion, the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy had end­ed up align­ing itself with those Sovi­et econ­o­mists who believed that val­ue was a tran­shis­tor­i­cal cat­e­go­ry, reducible to the social equa­tion of labor that would exist in any soci­ety and nec­es­sar­i­ly take the same form in social­ist plan­ning as it did in a cap­i­tal­ist mar­ket. Their attempt to show that the USSR, despite its plan­ning of pro­duc­tion and con­sump­tion, com­pet­ed on the world mar­ket and there­fore had the char­ac­ter­is­tics of a huge cap­i­tal­ist enter­prise, sim­ply dodged the ques­tion of the exchange of the prod­ucts of labor as an expres­sion of the mar­ket depen­dence of indi­vid­u­als.

Of course, Rubin did not address the ques­tion of whether the plan­ning organ of a social­ist soci­ety was a par­ty bureau­cra­cy, a work­ers’ coun­cil, or any­thing else. While this dis­tinc­tion would cer­tain­ly be of polit­i­cal sig­nif­i­cance, it has no bear­ing on the ques­tions of abstract labor and val­ue. In its under­stand­able dri­ve to crit­i­cize the oppres­sive char­ac­ter of work in the USSR, the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy had lost grip on its own crit­i­cal con­cepts, and above all, by reduc­ing the val­ue-form to alien­ation in the labor-process, com­plete­ly mud­dled the dis­tinc­tion between abstract and con­crete labor. In this regard inquiry had a tense rela­tion­ship to Marx­ist the­o­ry; shift­ing towards the doc­u­men­ta­tion of work­ers’ expe­ri­ence, the sub­jec­tive expe­ri­ence of the shop floor, the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy accept­ed and invert­ed the ortho­dox eco­nom­ic world­view of their adver­saries, leav­ing it more or less intact.

And by accept­ing the tran­shis­tor­i­cal con­cep­tion of the cat­e­gories of labor and val­ue, social­ism itself took on tran­shis­tor­i­cal char­ac­ter­is­tics. It was a telos already con­tained in the orig­in, in human nature which alien­at­ed itself in machin­ery. The task of social­ists was to uncov­er it by cast­ing aside the cap­i­tal­ist fet­ters. Accord­ing to this view, social­ism would not have to be con­struct­ed; it would have to be real­ized. We can iden­ti­fy a kind of dou­ble mean­ing to this term: on the one hand, social­ism as an inher­ent ten­den­cy would have to be made “real,” or actu­al, and on the oth­er hand, social­ism could be actu­al­ized only when those work­ers cur­rent­ly engaged in the­se embry­on­ic social­ist rela­tions grad­u­al­ly came to rec­og­nize, or “real­ize,” that social­ism already con­sti­tut­ed the very essence of post­war cap­i­tal­ism.

This con­cep­tion of social­ism was a com­men­tary on Singer’s expe­ri­ences inso­far as work­ers’ inquiry was the means of this real­iza­tion. It was through inquiry that work­ers would come to “real­ize” that social­ism was already there, hid­den in their every­day lives, wait­ing to burst forth. In cir­cu­lat­ing the­se inquiries, oth­er work­ers with sim­i­lar expe­ri­ences would come to the same real­iza­tion, spark­ing a dia­logue over their uni­ver­sal expe­ri­ences. In this way the work­ers would become con­scious of them­selves as a rev­o­lu­tion­ary class. The prin­ci­pal task of the orga­ni­za­tion, first as the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy, and then as Cor­re­spon­dence, would be to facil­i­tate this com­ing-to-con­scious­ness by cre­at­ing a space where con­nec­tions or “cor­re­spon­dences” between dif­fer­ent work­ers could be made.

Inquiry, then, was the cor­ner­stone of this project. Grace Lee Bog­gs had the­o­rized it, and Phil Singer had pro­vid­ed the first con­crete exam­ple. The Amer­i­can Work­er would there­fore emerge as a kind of par­a­digm. In 1952 Si Owens pub­lished Indig­nant Heart: A Black Worker’s Jour­nal, under the pseu­do­nym of Matthew Ward. It was much longer, in fact prac­ti­cal­ly a book, and was explic­it­ly auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal. It told the sto­ry of how a young black work­er moved from the cot­ton fields of Ten­nessee to the auto­mo­bile plants of Detroit and became a mil­i­tant, a rad­i­cal force with­in the Unit­ed Auto­mo­bile Work­ers of Amer­i­ca. In 1953 “Arthur Bau­man,” the pseu­do­nym of an anony­mous stu­dent, recount­ed his sto­ry to Paul Wal­lis in what would become Artie Cuts Out, a nar­ra­tive, again in the style of Singer’s The Amer­i­can Work­er, about high school stu­dents in New York. Also that year, Correspondence’s best­selling pam­phlet, A Woman’s Place by Marie Brant (Sel­ma James) and Ellen San­tori (Filom­e­na D’Addario), made its first appear­ance. What Singer did for fac­to­ry work­ers, Owens for black work­ers, and Bau­man for the youth, James and D’Addario sought to do for house­wives. A Woman’s Place dis­cussed the role of house­work, the val­ue of repro­duc­tive labor, and the orga­ni­za­tions autonomous­ly invent­ed by wom­en in the course of their strug­gle.

Fol­low­ing Singer’s mod­el and Boggs’s the­o­ret­i­cal frame, all of them drew on the every­day expe­ri­ences of the author in order to rig­or­ous­ly inves­ti­gate the social con­di­tions of a par­tic­u­lar class fig­ure; they then used that inquiry to the­o­rize how that frag­ment­ed social group might come togeth­er as a col­lec­tive polit­i­cal sub­ject. The objec­tive in all of the­se – as it would lat­er be for the Cor­re­spon­dence news­pa­per – was to show how seem­ing­ly per­son­al expe­ri­ences were actu­al­ly social. The under­ly­ing assump­tion of the­se inquiries was that what one par­tic­u­lar work­er felt some­where is very sim­i­lar to what anoth­er might feel else­where, and that the­se shared expe­ri­ences, the­se com­mon ways of liv­ing, can provide the ground­work for col­lec­tive action.18

Of course, it should be not­ed that nei­ther The Amer­i­can Work­er nor any of the­se oth­er texts ever called itself a work­ers’ inquiry. Indeed, they could just be called work­er nar­ra­tives, or per­haps even tes­ti­monies.19 But they should all still be seen as rep­re­sent­ing an iter­a­tion, or at least a vari­a­tion, of the project Marx laid out in 1880. The Ten­den­cy was quite famil­iar with Marx’s 1880 arti­cle.20 Bog­gs had read it, and made an explic­it ref­er­ence to it in a foot­note in her sec­tion of The Amer­i­can Work­er.21 And despite sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences, the­se inquiries, espe­cial­ly The Amer­i­can Work­er, repro­duced many of the inten­tions, moti­va­tions, and objec­tives of Marx’s orig­i­nal project. In fact, read­ing Marx’s ques­tions alongside The Amer­i­can Work­er, it seems as though Singer had pro­vid­ed Marx with the first, com­pre­hen­sive respon­se to his ques­tion­naire – it was just sev­er­al decades late.

But Singer’s respon­se took a form that Marx did not antic­i­pate. Marx imag­ined that work­ers would offer line-by-line answers to his ques­tion­naire. “In replies,” he made sure to spec­i­fy, “the num­ber of the cor­re­spond­ing ques­tion should be given.” Singer, how­ev­er, did not pro­duce a neat list of bul­let­ed respons­es; he craft­ed the­se raw answers into a lit­er­ary nar­ra­tive. This was per­haps the most dis­tinc­tive fea­ture of all the inquiries spon­sored by the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy – and per­haps one of the main rea­sons why they were nev­er for­mal­ly called “work­ers’ inquiries.” Work­ers’ inquiry, in this vari­a­tion, was specif­i­cal­ly a sub­jec­tive nar­ra­tive account, not a respon­se to a ques­tion­naire.

This inno­va­tion in the gen­re of inquiry, how­ev­er, ampli­fied ten­sions already embed­ded in the orig­i­nal project. On the one hand, the nar­ra­tive form worked to advance inquiry as a form of pro­le­tar­i­an self-activ­i­ty. Although Marx made it clear that knowl­edge of the work­ing class could only be pro­duced by work­ers them­selves, his orig­i­nal project seemed to fore­close the space for any kind of cre­ative expres­sion, demand­ing mechan­i­cal answers to pre­fab­ri­cat­ed ques­tions. Singer’s nar­ra­tive mod­el allowed work­ers to raise their own unique voice, express them­selves in their own lan­guage, with their own idioms, ideas, and feel­ings, and even pose their own ques­tions.

On the oth­er hand, although priv­i­leg­ing the nar­ra­tive form might have ampli­fied the pow­er of work­ers’ inquiry as a means of self-activ­i­ty, it had the poten­tial to under­mine anoth­er of aspect of that project, what Marx called the acqui­si­tion of “an exact and pos­i­tive knowl­edge of the con­di­tions” of the work­ing class. The open­ness of the nar­ra­tive form exag­ger­ates a ten­den­cy to slip from mea­sured gen­er­al­iza­tion to unten­able over­gen­er­al­iza­tion. By try­ing to fuse his sub­jec­tiv­i­ty with that of the rank and file as a whole, Singer ends up attempt­ing to legit­imize him­self as a reli­able mouth­piece for all the work­ers in his fac­to­ry: “Their feel­ings, anx­i­eties, exhil­a­ra­tion, bore­dom, exhaus­tion, anger, have all been mine to one extent or anoth­er.”22 But as the text pro­ceeds, Singer qui­et­ly goes from “their feel­ings are mine” to “my feel­ings are theirs,” lead­ing the read­er to believe that Singer’s per­son­al expe­ri­ences, desires, and opin­ions are actu­al­ly those of the GM rank and file itself – if not those of the entire Amer­i­can work­ing class. His expe­ri­ences, or those of some work­ers at his par­tic­u­lar plant, are pre­sent­ed as the expe­ri­ences of all work­ers every­where.

Alleged­ly com­mon dai­ly expe­ri­ences are then gen­er­al­ized to uni­ver­sal polit­i­cal atti­tudes: “The work­ers feel that strikes mere­ly for wages do not get them any­where.”23 This is a prob­lem shared by all the nar­ra­tive accounts, since they all repli­cate Singer’s mod­el. In A Woman’s Place, for exam­ple, Sel­ma James wrote, “The co-authors of this book­let have seen this in their own lives and in the lives of the wom­en they know. They have writ­ten this down as a begin­ning of the expres­sion of what the aver­age wom­an feels, thinks, and lives.” One first won­ders whether there is such a thing as an “aver­age wom­an,” free from the com­pli­cat­ing dimen­sions of region, class, race, sex­u­al­i­ty, and so forth; but even if this uneasi­ness is set aside, one is still left to ask whether James’s own unique expe­ri­ences are enough to access “the aver­age.” In fact, James intro­duces anoth­er inno­va­tion that extends the reach of her gen­er­al­iza­tions. Her inquiry begins in the third per­son, but after only a few pages abrupt­ly shifts to the sec­ond per­son. The pat­tern quick­ly repeats itself: “Every­thing a house­wife does, she does alone. All the work in the house is for you to do by your­self.”24

This kind of homog­e­niza­tion sup­ports, and is in fact sup­port­ed by, a decon­tex­tu­al­iza­tion of expe­ri­ence. Near­ly all of the­se inquiries, with the slight excep­tion of Indig­nant Heart, go to great lengths to detach their nar­ra­tive from a speci­fic local­i­ty. There is noth­ing in The Amer­i­can Work­er reveal­ing where Singer actu­al­ly works; the same goes for A Woman’s Place.25 If one of the pri­ma­ry objec­tives of work­ers’ inquiry is to rig­or­ous­ly study the con­di­tions of exploita­tion at speci­fic points of pro­duc­tion, to pro­duce a pos­i­tive and exact knowl­edge of the work­ing class, it must spec­i­fy the bound­aries of its inves­ti­ga­tion. Though fac­to­ries in post­war Amer­i­ca might have had some com­mon­al­i­ties, they were wild­ly dif­fer­ent, each with its dis­tinct con­di­tions of pro­duc­tion, pow­er rela­tions, and demo­graph­ics.

A close­ly relat­ed prob­lem is the delib­er­ate mod­i­fi­ca­tion of infor­ma­tion, in a way that often alters the mean­ing of the accounts. One imme­di­ate exam­ple results from the use of pseu­do­nyms. Near­ly every­one in the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy had one, and most had sev­er­al; in fact, there were so many fake names in cir­cu­la­tion, Bog­gs recalled that there were times when they them­selves didn’t even know who was who.26 This was part­ly a holdover from Trot­sky­ist prac­tices, but more seri­ous­ly a secu­ri­ty mea­sure again­st McCarthy­ism; at one point Cor­re­spon­dence had as many as 75 infil­tra­tors, and CLR James would lat­er be deport­ed because of his activ­i­ties with the group.27

But despite the jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for the prac­tice of assum­ing pseu­do­nyms, they pro­vid­ed a cov­er for ambigu­ous author­ship. A Woman’s Place was signed by two wom­en, both under pseu­do­nyms, but was actu­al­ly writ­ten only by Sel­ma James. As James lat­er recalled, she wrote the book by jot­ting down ideas on scraps of paper, then drop­ping them into a slit made in the top of a shoe box. She lat­er sat down and pieced togeth­er the ideas into a draft. After she shared the draft with the group and her neigh­bors, and made some revi­sions, CLR James told her to include Filom­e­na D’Addario’s sig­na­ture so that the lat­ter could speak about it to the pub­lic with some legit­i­ma­cy.28 It turns out that a piece which claims to have been writ­ten by two wom­en, and in fact tries to con­vince its read­ers that it was con­struct­ed from the expe­ri­ences of two dif­fer­ent wom­en, was actu­al­ly writ­ten by one.

But the most seri­ous trou­ble is in Indig­nant Heart. Of all the accounts, this is the only one to give pre­cise details about places, and so, at first glance, seems to break with the mod­el devel­oped by Singer. In actu­al fact, how­ev­er, though the book is large­ly accu­rate regard­ing Owens’ lat­er life in the North, it delib­er­ate­ly dis­torts his place of birth, set­ting his child­hood in south­east Ten­nessee rather than in Lown­des Coun­ty, Alaba­ma. In the 1978 reprint, which includ­ed a sec­ond part pick­ing up where the orig­i­nal 1952 text left off, Owens jus­ti­fied this by remind­ing his read­ers of the “vicious McCarthyite witch hunt,” adding that “few who did not go through that expe­ri­ence of nation­al repres­sion of ideas can ful­ly under­stand the tru­ly total­i­tar­i­an nature of McCarthy­ism and the ter­ror it pro­duced.”29 Less con­vinc­ing, how­ev­er, is his claim that the­se changes “do not take any­thing away from the truth of the expe­ri­ences described,” and that what he wrote about his ear­ly years “could be true of almost all Blacks” liv­ing in the South­ern Unit­ed States.30

In oth­er words, the rewrit­ing of the facts is ratio­nal­ized by the assump­tion of a homo­ge­neous and uni­ver­sal expe­ri­ence. But Alaba­ma is not Ten­nessee, and such a dras­tic move com­pro­mis­es the sci­en­tific char­ac­ter of the piece; it becomes more like his­tor­i­cal fic­tion, and less a con­crete inquiry into speci­fic con­di­tions of exploita­tion. An inquiry into the world of the work­ing class threat­ens to degen­er­ate into a kind of trav­el diary; close, metic­u­lous, mil­i­tant inves­ti­ga­tion tends to be replaced with enter­tain­ing sto­ries about the mys­tery, exoti­cism, and strange­ness of an unknown world.

Per­haps even more trou­bling, Si Owens did not actu­al­ly write Indig­nant Heart. Con­stance Webb, anoth­er mem­ber of the group, and James’s one­time lover, did. Cor­re­spon­dence cham­pi­oned a prac­tice which Dunayevskaya lat­er called “the full foun­tain pen” method – though it is per­haps bet­ter known as amanu­en­sis. Intel­lec­tu­als would be paired with work­ers who might be uncom­fort­able writ­ing their expe­ri­ences; they would lis­ten as the work­ers recount­ed their sto­ry, write them down on their behalf, and then have the­se work­ers revise the writ­ten doc­u­ments as they saw fit. It was Webb, then, who record­ed the sto­ry, made revi­sions, edit­ed the drafts, and pieced it all togeth­er into a coher­ent whole.31 It was in many ways just as much her book.

But the lead­er­ship, in this case large­ly Dunayevskaya, and not the authors, decid­ed how the book should appear. Dunayevskaya insist­ed that it be called Indig­nant Heart, after a quo­ta­tion by Wen­dell Phillips, over the protest of both Owens and Webb; and, even more seri­ous­ly, she decid­ed to pub­lish it all under the sin­gle name of Matthew Ward.32 In an odd way, Cor­re­spon­dence had delib­er­ate­ly effaced its con­di­tions of pro­duc­tion, mak­ing it appear as though a sin­gle author had writ­ten the book by him­self, which was far from true. Yet one of orig­i­nal aims of Correspondence’s inquiries had been to hon­est­ly rec­on­cile the ten­sions between intel­lec­tu­als and work­ers. Why hes­i­tate in admit­ting that Indig­nant Heart had been, at its very core, a work of col­lab­o­ra­tion? Why go to such lengths to make the text look like an exam­ple of raw pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ence, rather than a medi­at­ed pro­duc­tion?

Final­ly, all the­se inquiries imbri­cate the descrip­tive with the pre­scrip­tive. They draw lim­it­ed con­clu­sions based on the analy­sis of observ­able phe­nom­e­na while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly mak­ing declar­a­tive state­ments about what real­i­ty should actu­al­ly look like. The trend was first set by Singer, who con­clud­ed the first part of The Amer­i­can Work­er by announc­ing that the work­ers’ frus­tra­tion with the incen­tive sys­tem amount­ed to “no less than say­ing that the exist­ing pro­duc­tion rela­tions must be over­thrown.”33 In the same way, James ends her own inquiry, “Wom­en are find­ing more and more that there is no way out but a com­plete change. But one thing is already clear. Things can’t go on the way they are. Every wom­an knows that.”34 Sure­ly not all wom­en actu­al­ly thought this in 1953. And sure­ly James knew this, just as Singer was well aware that most work­ers did not want to over­throw exist­ing pro­duc­tion rela­tions. The­se state­ments can only real­ly be under­stood as per­for­ma­tive – not descrip­tions of exist­ing sit­u­a­tion, but declar­a­tive moves seek­ing to trans­form what the text has already described. For a tra­di­tion which ground­ed itself in the rais­ing of con­scious­ness, the­se state­ments about the con­scious­ness of work­ers, dis­sem­i­nat­ed to those work­ers them­selves, sought to become self-ful­fill­ing prophe­cies.

Though all four of the­se inquires cer­tain­ly engage in sci­en­tific analy­sis, tak­ing note of new forms of pro­duc­tion, exploita­tion, and resis­tance, the­se obser­va­tions only seem to serve as the lit­er­ary back­ground for an unfold­ing nar­ra­tive, rather than serv­ing as inci­sive obser­va­tions into a par­tic­u­lar point of pro­duc­tion. All the ten­sions explored above work to seri­ous­ly dimin­ish the speci­fic research val­ue of the­se texts. But it is impor­tant to rec­og­nize that they only become prob­lems if one con­tin­ues to pri­or­i­tize the research func­tion of work­ers’ inquiry. If, how­ev­er, the objec­tive is to build class con­scious­ness, then the dis­tor­tions of the nar­ra­tive form are not prob­lems at all. They might actu­al­ly be quite nec­es­sary. With the­se nar­ra­tives, the ten­sion in Marx’s work­ers’ inquiry – between a research tool on the one hand, and a form of agi­ta­tion on the oth­er – is large­ly resolved by sub­or­di­nat­ing the for­mer to the lat­ter, trans­form­ing inquiry into a means to the end of con­scious­ness-build­ing.

Building the Circuit: Socialisme ou Barbarie

The­se Amer­i­can exper­i­ments in work­ers’ inquiry res­onat­ed quite broad­ly, becom­ing an explic­it ref­er­ence point for one French group in par­tic­u­lar. Social­is­me ou Bar­barie fol­lowed a remark­ably sim­i­lar tra­jec­to­ry to that of its Amer­i­can equiv­a­lents – the two groups were in con­tact, shar­ing their dis­cov­er­ies, trans­lat­ing each other’s work, and even co-author­ing a book at one point. It began as the “Chaulieu-Mon­tal Ten­den­cy,” an inter­nal cur­rent with­in the French sec­tion of the Trot­sky­ist Fourth Inter­na­tion­al, named after the pseu­do­nyms of its prin­ci­pal ani­ma­tors, Cor­nelius Cas­to­ri­adis (Pier­re Chaulieu) and Claude Lefort (Claude Mon­tal). Like the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy in the Unit­ed States, the Chaulieu-Mon­tal Ten­den­cy soon found itself opposed to the offi­cial Trot­sky­ist move­ment, prompt­ing a split in late 1948. About twen­ty mil­i­tants left to form a new orga­ni­za­tion, Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, with a new jour­nal of the same name. The first issue was released in March of the fol­low­ing year.35

Like Cor­re­spon­dence, Social­is­me ou Bar­barie placed a great deal of empha­sis on the notion of pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ence. For both the­se groups, social­ist the­o­ry and strat­e­gy, even the very con­tent of social­ist project itself, could only be derived from the every­day expe­ri­ences of the work­ing class. Daniel Blan­chard, a for­mer mem­ber of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, has reflect­ed on the organization’s con­cep­tion of a social­ist soci­ety: it would be “not the result of either utopi­an dream­ing, or of an alleged sci­ence of his­to­ry, but of the cre­ations of the work­ers move­ment. The pro­le­tari­at is, by its prac­tice, the per­pet­u­al inven­tor of rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry and the task of the intel­lec­tu­als is lim­it­ed to syn­the­siz­ing and sys­tem­atiz­ing it.“36

In this regard Social­is­me ou Bar­barie con­test­ed the French Com­mu­nist Par­ty (PCF) which held that social­ism had to be brought to the work­ing class from the out­side. For both Cor­re­spon­dence and Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, on the oth­er hand social­ism actu­al­ly came from with­in every­day pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ences. But the­se groups agreed that work­ers are large­ly social­ized by cap­i­tal­ism, and there­fore still marked by cap­i­tal­ist ide­ol­o­gy, at least to some degree. Since almost no one was free of cap­i­tal­ist think­ing, social­ist con­scious­ness would not spon­ta­neous­ly burst forth, even though it was always lurk­ing below. Cap­i­tal­ist ide­ol­o­gy still had to be com­bat­ed; and some oth­er mech­a­nism was required to allow this latent con­scious­ness to appear.

That mech­a­nism was work­ers’ inquiry. So while the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy was the first to recode work­ers’ inquiry in the form of the work­er nar­ra­tive, Social­is­me ou Bar­barie explained why: the work­er nar­ra­tive could express the pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ence in such a way as to make its embed­ded social­ist con­tent appear.

Social­is­me ou Bar­barie adopt­ed this speci­fic form of work­ers’ inquiry – inquiry as nar­ra­tive account – from Cor­re­spon­dence almost ready­made. The group set about trans­lat­ing The Amer­i­can Work­er, which appeared seri­al­ly in the first eight issues of its homony­mous­ly titled  jour­nal. The­se mil­i­tants hailed the pam­phlet as a new, rev­o­lu­tion­ary kind of writ­ing; Philippe Guil­laume intro­duced it with the dec­la­ra­tion that “the name Romano will stay in the his­to­ry of pro­le­tar­i­an lit­er­a­ture, and that it will even sig­ni­fy a turn­ing point in this his­to­ry.”37

Work­ers’ inquiry, in this ear­ly French con­text, there­fore took on rough­ly the same form that it did with the Amer­i­cans, with The Amer­i­can Work­er again set­ting the par­a­digm. It not only formed the empir­i­cal ground for Claude Lefort’s “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence,” Social­is­me ou Barbarie’s most seri­ous the­o­riza­tion of inquiry, but would also spawn a num­ber French inquiries mod­eled on Singer’s account. The first came in 1952, when Georges Vivier, a young work­er at Chaus­son, began a series on pro­le­tar­i­an life titled “La vie en usine” (Life in the Fac­to­ry). The most famous of the­se nar­ra­tives, how­ev­er, were the diaries of Daniel Mothé, the nom de guer­re of Jacques Gau­trat, a machin­ist at Renault-Bil­lan­court.38 His writ­ings, which first appeared in the pages of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, attract­ed so much atten­tion that an edit­ed ver­sion was soon pub­lished by Les Édi­tions de Minu­it in 1959 under the title Jour­nal d’un ouvri­er 1956-1958 (Jour­nal of a Work­er). It was received well enough to prompt the pub­li­ca­tion of a sec­ond diary, called Mil­i­tant chez Renault (Mil­i­tant at Renault), by Les Édi­tions du Seuil in 1965.

There would be a sec­ond moment in this transna­tion­al cir­cu­la­tion. By the time Cor­re­spon­dence split from the offi­cial Trot­sky­ist move­ment to become its own dis­tinct enti­ty, the group decid­ed to fur­ther rev­o­lu­tion­ize the form of work­ers’ inquiry: work­er nar­ra­tives became a work­ers’ paper. The work­ers’ paper was to be a more dynam­ic form of inquiry, where dif­fer­ent sec­tors of the work­ing class could not only share their expe­ri­ences with sim­i­lar kinds of work­ers, but could in fact exchange those expe­ri­ences with each oth­er through let­ters to the edi­tors.

Social­is­me ou Bar­barie cer­tain­ly had some reser­va­tions about the the­o­ret­i­cal assump­tions under­pin­ning the Cor­re­spon­dence project, but the group was suf­fi­cient­ly inspired by the mod­el of the work­ers’ paper to spon­sor one of its own in France. Just as The Amer­i­can Work­er had cre­at­ed a new gen­re of writ­ing, so too, they believed, did Cor­re­spon­dence stand for an entire­ly new kind of pub­li­ca­tion. “It rep­re­sents a pro­found­ly orig­i­nal effort to cre­ate a jour­nal for the most part writ­ten by work­ers to speak with work­ers from the work­ers’ view­point,” they wrote in 1954. “It must sim­ply be acknowl­edged that Cor­re­spon­dence rep­re­sents a new type of jour­nal and that it opens a new peri­od in rev­o­lu­tion­ary work­er jour­nal­ism.”39 So just as Social­is­me ou Bar­barie was inspired by The Amer­i­can Work­er to spon­sor its own work­er nar­ra­tives, so too was it prompt­ed to sup­port the for­ma­tion of a work­ers paper along the same lines as Cor­re­spon­dence.

But although both groups used the work­ers’ nar­ra­tive and the work­ers’ paper as a means of access­ing the pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ence, there was still at least one sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence. For Cor­re­spon­dence, social­ism already exist­ed embry­on­i­cal­ly in pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ences, which sim­ply had to be expressed and shared with oth­er work­ers. It was enough to provide a forum in which to cir­cu­late the­se expe­ri­ences; the “invad­ing social­ist soci­ety” would emerge on its own.

Social­is­me ou Bar­barie remained skep­ti­cal. Cor­nelius Cas­to­ri­adis would com­ment many years lat­er, if “you talk about the invad­ing social­ist soci­ety,” then you “keep the apoc­a­lyp­tic, mes­sian­ic streak; the idea that there is a def­i­nite end to the road, and unless every­thing blows up we are going there and we are bound to end there, which is not true.”40 For Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, the devel­op­ment of social­ism was not an irre­sistible force, but the very ques­tion to be answered. While there were cer­tain ele­ments, rudi­men­ta­ry, inchoate, frag­ment­ed, that could be found in pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ences, they could not be acti­vat­ed sim­ply through writ­ing, or even the shar­ing of that writ­ing with oth­er work­ers. Some in Social­is­me ou Bar­barie even believed that the­se ele­ments could not be prop­er­ly artic­u­lat­ed into a coher­ent social­ist project until they had been reworked through the­o­ry.

So the buried ele­ments recov­ered by inquiry had to be politi­cized before social­ism could see the light of day. The­se dif­fer­ences imme­di­ate­ly put into ques­tion the poten­tial func­tion of mil­i­tant intel­lec­tu­als. For Cor­re­spon­dence, the role of intel­lec­tu­als was ambigu­ous. Their goal was to provide the space for work­er expe­ri­ences to be shared, even if this result­ed in a poten­tial ven­tril­o­quism, as in the case of Con­stance Webb and Si Owens. As a 1955 edi­to­ri­al called “Must Serve Work­ers” put it, “The pri­ma­ry task of any indi­vid­u­al who comes to a work­ing class move­ment from anoth­er class is to put behind him his past and com­plete­ly iden­ti­fy and adapt him­self to the work­ing class… The func­tion of the intel­lec­tu­al is to aid the move­ment, to place his intel­lec­tu­al accom­plish­ment at the dis­pos­al of the work­ers.”41

Indeed, the very struc­ture of the orga­ni­za­tion was deter­mined by this belief. Grace Lee Bog­gs lat­er recalled in her auto­bi­og­ra­phy that the group tried to ground itself on Lenin’s notion that the best way to com­bat the bureau­cra­cy of the “first lay­er” of intel­lec­tu­als was to devel­op the “third lay­er” of the work­ers.42 Cor­re­spon­dence divid­ed itself into three lay­ers: “real work­ers” in the first, “intel­lec­tu­als” who were now employed in jobs tra­di­tion­al­ly done by “work­ers” in the sec­ond, and the “real intel­lec­tu­als” in the third. As an evi­dent­ly dis­grun­tled for­mer mem­ber recalled:

The real pro­le­tar­i­ans were put in the first lay­er, peo­ple of mixed sta­tus, like house­wives, in the sec­ond, and the intel­lec­tu­als were put in the third. Our meet­ings con­sist­ed of the now high­ly pres­tige­ful first lay­er spout­ing off, usu­al­ly in a ran­dom, inar­tic­u­late way, about what they thought about every­thing under the sun. The rest of us, espe­cial­ly we intel­lec­tu­als in the third lay­er, were told to lis­ten.43

In con­trast to this, Social­is­me ou Bar­barie claimed that work­er expe­ri­ences had to be inter­pret­ed and devel­oped, and this opened up space for a dif­fer­ent role for intel­lec­tu­als. The larg­er space that Social­is­me ou Bar­barie accord­ed to the­o­ret­i­cal pro­duc­tion forced it to more direct­ly, and per­haps more con­tentious­ly, inter­ro­gate the rela­tion­ship between work­ers and intel­lec­tu­als, espe­cial­ly as it relat­ed to the prac­tice of work­ers’ inquiry.

But to under­stand the prob­lems raised by the work­ers’ paper, we have to go back to 1952 and an unsigned arti­cle by Claude Lefort titled “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence.”44 Hid­den with­in their dai­ly expe­ri­ences, Lefort claimed, lay basic, per­haps even uni­ver­sal, pro­le­tar­i­an atti­tudes: “Pri­or to any explic­it reflec­tion, to any inter­pre­ta­tion of their lot or their role, work­ers have spon­ta­neous com­port­ments with respect to indus­tri­al work, exploita­tion, the orga­ni­za­tion of pro­duc­tion and social life both inside and out­side the fac­to­ry.”45 To access the­se atti­tudes, which for Lefort formed the very ground of the social­ist project, mil­i­tants had to col­lect accounts of pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ences. Indeed, learn­ing about the expe­ri­ences of the work­ing class, and inquir­ing into its dai­ly life, had to be a fun­da­men­tal aspect of any rev­o­lu­tion­ary orga­ni­za­tions. “Social­is­me ou Bar­barie would like to solic­it tes­ti­monies from work­ers,” he announced, “and pub­lish them at the same time as it accords an impor­tant place to all forms of analy­sis con­cern­ing pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ence.”46

Since those atti­tudes, how­ev­er, remain latent, and because they are nec­es­sar­i­ly par­tial, tes­ti­monies must not only be col­lect­ed, but actu­al­ly inter­pret­ed. And there­in lay the real prob­lem: who had the right to inter­pret the­se accounts? Lefort con­clud­ed his pro­gram­mat­ic essay with exact­ly this ques­tion, which he answered with anoth­er:

Who will reveal from beneath the explic­it con­tent of a doc­u­ment the inten­tions and atti­tudes that inspired it, and jux­ta­pose the tes­ti­monies? The com­rades of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie? But would this not run coun­ter to their inten­tions, given that they pro­pose a kind of research that would enable work­ers to reflect upon their expe­ri­ence?47

For the moment, the­se ques­tions were not so press­ing, since Social­is­me ou Bar­barie remained on the mar­gins, and inquiry on the scale imag­ined by Lefort a mere pro­pos­al. But they became a prac­ti­cal con­cern in May 1954, when a work­ers’ paper actu­al­ly emerged in France. It all began at Renault-Bil­lan­court, an auto­mo­bile plant in the sub­urbs of Paris. A mon­ster of a fac­to­ry, employ­ing some 30,000 work­ers, it was also a leg­endary site of pro­le­tar­i­an mil­i­tan­cy, and wide­ly con­sid­ered a Com­mu­nist strong­hold. But by the 1950s, the Par­ty slow­ly began to lose its grip, increas­ing­ly com­ing under fire from more rad­i­cal ele­ments, like the Trot­sky­ists. It was in this con­text that, in April 1954, a break­through arrived when a few work­ers from one of the fac­to­ry shops cir­cu­lat­ed a leaflet on wage lev­els. It was warm­ly received by oth­er work­ers, and, encour­aged by this enthu­si­as­tic recep­tion, a few work­ers decid­ed to launch an inde­pen­dent, clan­des­tine, month­ly paper called Tri­bune Ouvrière.48

“What we want,” announced the first issue of the work­ers paper, posi­tion­ing itself again­st both the Renault man­age­ment and the PCF lead­er­ship, “is to end the tute­lage that the so-called work­ers’ orga­ni­za­tions have exer­cised over us for many years. We want all prob­lems con­cern­ing the work­ing class to be debat­ed by the work­ers them­selves… What we sug­gest is to make of this paper a tri­bune in which we ask you to par­tic­i­pate. We would like this paper to reflect the lives and opin­ions of work­ers. It’s up to you to make this hap­pen.”49

Social­is­me ou Bar­barie quick­ly sup­port­ed the paper, offer­ing it finan­cial back­ing, help­ing to dis­trib­ute it, and even pub­lish­ing extracts of the paper in its own review. But the exact rela­tion­ship between the two pub­li­ca­tions – the one a clan­des­tine paper writ­ten, edit­ed, and man­aged by fac­to­ry work­ers, the oth­er a the­o­ret­i­cal jour­nal almost entire­ly pro­duced by intel­lec­tu­als – was ambigu­ous, and, at times high­ly divi­sive. Some saw the work­ers’ paper as an inde­pen­dent venue for the raw voice of the work­ing class, what­ev­er it might have to say, and there­fore only loose­ly allied with the the­o­ret­i­cal project car­ried out by Social­is­me ou Bar­barie; oth­ers want­ed to for­mal­ly inte­grate it with Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, hop­ing the work­ers’ paper could intro­duce the rig­or­ous ideas of the group to a broad­er pro­le­tar­i­an audi­ence.

In 1955, Tri­bune Ouvrière began run­ning into dif­fi­cul­ties. The col­lec­tive had not real­ly grown, work­ers by and large seemed indif­fer­ent to the paper, and the edi­to­ri­al board remained tiny, with no more than per­haps 15 work­ers. Part of this gen­er­al lack of inter­est stemmed from logis­ti­cal chal­lenges. The edi­to­ri­al team had min­i­mal fund­ing, and couldn’t afford to charge high prices, since none of the work­ers would buy an expen­sive paper. It was also very dif­fi­cult to dis­trib­ute. As a clan­des­tine paper, it could only be cir­cu­lat­ed from hand to hand. And its meet­ings could not be orga­nized out in the open, mak­ing it very dif­fi­cult to estab­lish long-term rela­tions with inter­est­ed read­ers.

But there were also oth­er, per­haps more fun­da­men­tal prob­lems at play. Daniel Mothé used the oppor­tu­ni­ty to write a pro­gram­mat­ic piece on the mean­ing of the work­ers’ paper, spend­ing a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of the arti­cle dis­cussing the rela­tion­ship between work­ers and intel­lec­tu­als. It should be not­ed at the out­set that Mothé was not real­ly a “neu­tral” observer. The only one to have a foot in both orga­ni­za­tions, Mothé was one of the prin­ci­pal ani­ma­tors behind the paper as well as mem­ber of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie since 1952 – he there­fore had a vest­ed inter­est in “solv­ing” the vexed rela­tion­ship between the two pub­li­ca­tions.50 It’s high­ly sig­nif­i­cant, more­over, that Mothé pub­lished his long piece about Tri­bune Ouvrière in Social­is­me ou Bar­barie.

In con­trast to Cor­re­spon­dence, which he direct­ly men­tioned in his piece, Mothé argued that a work­ers’ paper, though entire­ly writ­ten by work­ers them­selves, still had to par­tic­i­pate in some kind of dia­logue with mil­i­tant intel­lec­tu­als – in fact, this had to be its pri­ma­ry func­tion. For Mothé there is a clear divi­sion of labor, deter­mined by the cap­i­tal­ist mode of pro­duc­tion itself, which can­not be will­ful­ly ignored. Rev­o­lu­tion­ary pol­i­tics has to take account of this divi­sion, rather than wish it away. Mothé builds on this obser­va­tion to con­struct a dichoto­my between two ide­al types: the work­er on the one hand, and the mil­i­tant intel­lec­tu­al on the oth­er. They are pri­mar­i­ly dis­tin­guished, he says, by their train­ing, sug­gest­ing that “if the for­ma­tion of the rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tant is a for­ma­tion that is almost exclu­sive­ly intel­lec­tu­al,” espe­cial­ly dur­ing a peri­od in which “rev­o­lu­tion­ary minori­ties” have been uproot­ed from the work­ing class, the “polit­i­cal for­ma­tion of work­ers is, on the con­trary, almost exclu­sive­ly prac­ti­cal.” This prac­ti­cal for­ma­tion was both acquired in the expe­ri­ence of strug­gle and became the basis of new meth­ods of strug­gle. The key prob­lem is to find a way to link the­se two dis­tinct poles, to cre­ate a form that can fuse the “imme­di­ate expe­ri­ence of the work­ers and the the­o­ret­i­cal expe­ri­ence of rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants.”51

Mothé argued that each pole had to play a unique func­tion that was nev­er­the­less depen­dent on the oth­er. The rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tant artic­u­lates rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry, imparts that the­o­ry to the work­ing class, and com­bats false ideas.52 The “essen­tial ele­ments” of that the­o­ry, how­ev­er, are them­selves drawn from the lived expe­ri­ences of the work­ing class. They form a rec­i­p­ro­cal rela­tion­ship: “In this sense, if the work­ing class needs the rev­o­lu­tion­ary orga­ni­za­tion to the­o­rize its expe­ri­ence, the orga­ni­za­tion needs the work­ing class in order to draw on this expe­ri­ence. This process of osmo­sis has a deci­sive impor­tance.”53

The key­stone of this rela­tion, Mothé argued, is pre­cise­ly the work­ers’ news­pa­per. The real func­tion of the work­ers’ paper is to medi­ate between the­se two poles. It is the means through which work­ers can express their every­day expe­ri­ences, which can then be the­o­rized by rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants. Mil­i­tants can then read the­se accounts, sift through them for latent polit­i­cal ten­den­cies, and work their rudi­men­ta­ry insights into rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry. At the same time, one assumes, the paper can serve as the vehi­cle through which the­se new­ly devel­oped the­o­ries will then be trans­mit­ted back to the work­ing class.

Mothé’s mod­el, how­ev­er, posed as many ques­tions as it answered. To begin with, there was the impre­cise notion of expe­ri­ence, and the ques­tion­able assump­tion that, at base, all pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ences artic­u­lat­ed a set of uni­ver­sal atti­tudes. The John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy and Claude Lefort both shared this sup­po­si­tion. Indeed, in “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence,” Lefort went so far as to write:

Two work­ers in very dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tions have in com­mon that both have endured one or anoth­er form of work and exploita­tion that is essen­tial­ly the same and absorbs three-quar­ters of their per­son­al exis­tence. Their wages might be very dif­fer­ent, their liv­ing sit­u­a­tions and fam­i­ly lives may not be com­pa­ra­ble, but it remains the case that they are pro­found­ly iden­ti­cal both in their roles as pro­duc­ers or machine oper­a­tors, and in their alien­ation.

Even if one lim­its the work­ing class to fac­to­ry work­ers, which Lefort seemed to do, such a claim reduces the het­ero­gene­ity of the work­ing class to a shared human essence: work­ers are every­where the same because they have all alien­at­ed their uni­ver­sal cre­ative pow­ers into the things they pro­duce. But such a con­cep­tion pre­vents us from grasp­ing the many forms that labor-pow­er assumes, the plu­ral­i­ty of ways it is put to work, and the diverse process­es through which it is exploit­ed.

All this leads one to won­der who the­se “work­ers” Mothé keeps talk­ing about real­ly are. If rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants must draw on pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ences, do the­se include those of house­wives and farm­work­ers? Must rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants draw on all the­se expe­ri­ences, or is the expe­ri­ence of only one sec­tor suf­fi­cient, and if so, which will speak for all the rest? Mothé’s unsta­ble ter­mi­nol­o­gy expos­es his pref­er­ence. The piece begins by draw­ing a dis­tinc­tion between “rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants” and “work­ers,” but Mothé soon speaks of  “rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants” and “van­guard work­ers.” The slip sig­nals his pri­or­i­ti­za­tion of one kind of work­er over the oth­ers. Indeed, for Mothé, as with most Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, when they spoke of the work­ing class, they real­ly meant the indus­tri­al work­ing class, par­tic­u­lar­ly at the auto­mo­bile fac­to­ries; but even more specif­i­cal­ly, their ide­al fig­ure, their con­struct­ed van­guard, was semi-skilled labor­ers. It is impor­tant to observe that while Social­is­me ou Bar­barie sought to bypass the whole notion of the van­guard par­ty by going direct­ly to the work­ing class, even its most “anar­chis­tic” ele­ments, like Lefort, remained encased in the gen­er­al prob­lem­at­ic of van­guardism: the van­guard ele­ment was no longer out­side the class, but with­in it.

Mothé added a fur­ther qual­i­fi­ca­tion to this reduc­tion. The work­er must not only be the most polit­i­cal­ly con­scious of his class, but must also be capa­ble of express­ing his expe­ri­ences in such a way that they could be the­o­rized. This required not only a high degree of gen­er­al lit­er­a­cy, as well as a fair share of con­fi­dence, but also some flu­en­cy in a more chal­leng­ing polit­i­cal lex­i­con. “In this sense,” Mothé clar­i­fied, “those work­ers most suit­able for writ­ing will be those who are at the same time the most con­scious, the most edu­cat­ed but also those who will be the most rid of bour­geois or Stal­in­ist ide­o­log­i­cal influ­ence.”54 So Mothé want­ed a work­er who could not only reflect on his sit­u­a­tion and tran­scribe it into a nar­ra­tive that mim­ic­ked the nat­u­ral oral cul­ture of the aver­age work­er, but who would also be free of all non-rev­o­lu­tion­ary ide­ol­o­gy. It’s no sur­prise then, that Mothé, and much of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, only found one work­er who fit the bill: Daniel Mothé him­self.55

The synec­dochic sub­sti­tu­tion of a sin­gle polit­i­cal­ly con­scious male fac­to­ry work­er for the work­ing class as a whole marks a sig­nif­i­cant step back from the posi­tions devel­oped by the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy, and lat­er Cor­re­spon­dence, which had iden­ti­fied at least four dis­tinct seg­ments of the work­ing class: indus­tri­al work­ers, blacks, wom­en, and youth.

Per­haps the shaki­est part of Mothé’s mod­el, how­ev­er, had to do not so much with the first step in this process – from work­ers to intel­lec­tu­als – but the sec­ond, from intel­lec­tu­als to work­ers. Mothé spent a great deal of time dis­cussing the first process, but very lit­tle on the sec­ond. This was large­ly because this sec­ond process proved to be con­tentious among both the rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie as well as the fac­to­ry work­ers who formed the edi­to­ri­al core of Tri­bune Ouvrière.56

Some were strong­ly sup­port­ive of “return­ing” social­ist ideas to the work­ing class. Cas­to­ri­adis was the first to argue, as ear­ly as June 1956, that the group had to cre­ate a sep­a­rate “work­ers’ paper” aimed explic­it­ly at the work­ing class, not just in Paris, but all of France. It was imper­a­tive, he thought, to intro­duce more work­ers to Social­is­me ou Barbarie’s the­o­ret­i­cal work, and to sharp­en the the­o­ry itself, since the need to engage with a broad­er audi­ence, and there­fore write more acces­si­bly, would push the mil­i­tants to work in a more “con­crete” way, avoid­ing abstrac­tions and pay­ing greater atten­tion to devel­op­ments in the class strug­gle.

This pro­pos­al was reject­ed. Some, like Mothé, accept­ed Cas­to­ri­adis’ the­o­ret­i­cal posi­tion whole­heart­ed­ly, and agreed with the neces­si­ty of such paper, but felt it was imprac­ti­cal due to the lack of resources, and the fact that the paper prob­a­bly would not find a ready audi­ence, given that it did not already enjoy strong links with the wider work­ing class in France. More­over, Mothé had seen firsthand, through his work with Tri­bune Ouvrière, just how dif­fi­cult it was to oper­ate a “work­ers’ jour­nal” in even one fac­to­ry, let alone all of France, as Cas­to­ri­adis hoped.

Oth­ers, like Hen­ri Simon and Claude Lefort, opposed the paper on the­o­ret­i­cal grounds, high­light­ing once again a major divi­sion over the vexed “orga­ni­za­tion ques­tion.” Simon asked to what extent the paper would actu­al­ly be a work­ers’ paper if it were forcibly repur­posed to trans­mit rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry to work­ers.57 How would this be any dif­fer­ent from the oth­er “work­er” news­pa­pers, such as those spon­sored by the PCF, which they so harsh­ly crit­i­cized?

In a sim­i­lar vein Lefort, who had always opposed the impo­si­tion of any kind of “direc­tion” onto the autonomous move­ments of the work­ing class, decried Castoriadis’s pro­posed paper as “an oper­a­tion from above.” As he put it, “Chaulieu has decid­ed to have this paper at any cost, even though there is no work­ing-class pub­lic in which to dif­fuse it, and even few­er work­ers to active­ly take part in it.”58 To be sure, Lefort was nev­er opposed to the notion of a work­ers’ paper, not even to orga­ni­za­tion or the­o­ry as such. But his con­vic­tion that every­thing had to flow organ­i­cal­ly from the work­ing class itself trans­lat­ed into a deep sus­pi­cion of pro­grams: what­ev­er the inten­tions behind the draft­ing of such a doc­u­ment, and even if it were elab­o­rat­ed in ref­er­ence to the class, a pro­gram would always end up ossi­fy­ing into an exte­ri­or form, ulti­mate­ly strait­jack­et­ing work­ing-class spon­tane­ity. Such a stance, which implied an extreme­ly cir­cum­scribed role for mil­i­tants, was anti­thet­i­cal to Cas­to­ri­adis’ posi­tion, already reveal­ing an irrec­on­cil­able dif­fer­ence between the two prin­ci­pal the­o­rists behind the jour­nal. And it was pre­cise­ly work­ers’ inquiry, in the form of the paper, that revealed it most strik­ing­ly. Though both ral­lied around work­ers’ inquiry, each had a very dif­fer­ent objec­tive in mind. For Lefort, the object of inquiry was uni­ver­sal pro­le­tar­i­an atti­tudes; for Cas­to­ri­adis, it was the rudi­men­ta­ry con­tent of the social­ist pro­gram.

Although the pro­pos­al was defeat­ed, the mat­ter explod­ed into full view again in 1958. De Gaulle’s coup cre­at­ed an entire­ly new sit­u­a­tion. The estab­lished Left seemed par­a­lyzed, a wave of new recruits flood­ed into Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, and many, led by Cas­to­ri­adis, believed the time had final­ly come to trans­form the group into a rev­o­lu­tion­ary orga­ni­za­tion, com­plete with a line, and a pop­u­lar paper like the one he had pro­posed back in 1956.59 A split took shape along the old fault lines, and in Sep­tem­ber, the minor­i­ty, led by Lefort and Simon, left to form Infor­ma­tion et Liaisons Ouvrières (Work­er Infor­ma­tion and Con­nec­tions, ILO).60

One of the very first actions of this rein­vent­ed Social­is­me ou Bar­barie was to cre­ate a new paper, Pou­voir Ouvri­er, in Decem­ber of that year. The form of the paper reflect­ed Mothé and Castoriadis’s goals, ini­tial­ly divid­ed into two sec­tions: a polit­i­cal one, which pub­lished sim­pli­fied ver­sions of the the­o­ries devel­oped in its par­ent orga­ni­za­tion, and anoth­er, titled “La parole aux tra­vailleurs” (loose­ly, The Work­ers’ Turn to Speak), which pub­lished work­er tes­ti­monies in the tra­di­tion of Paul Romano.

Argu­ing for the strate­gic neces­si­ty of the paper, Cas­to­ri­adis elab­o­rat­ed his con­cep­tion of the rela­tion­ship of the intel­lec­tu­al and the work­er in “Pro­le­tari­at and Orga­ni­za­tion, Part 1,” writ­ten in the sum­mer of 1958 as the split with Lefort’s fac­tion was tak­ing place. While Mothé’s mod­el of the paper had been some­thing like a trans­mis­sion belt, mov­ing for­ward then back­wards between work­ers and intel­lec­tu­als, as if at the flip of a switch, in this text Cas­to­ri­adis pro­vides a more dynam­ic image, more like a cir­cuit. Mil­i­tants do not sim­ply dis­sem­i­nate their the­o­ries among work­ers in order to con­vert them to social­ism, they sub­mit their the­o­ries for ver­i­fi­ca­tion. Rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry will “have no val­ue, no con­sis­ten­cy with what it else­where pro­claims to be its essen­tial prin­ci­ples,” Cas­to­ri­adis argued, “unless it is con­stant­ly being replen­ished, in prac­tice, by the expe­ri­ence of the work­ers as it takes shape in their day-to-day lives;” it was this process which would allow the work­ers to “edu­cate the edu­ca­tor.”61 This meant that Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, which had hith­er­to been an exceed­ing­ly “intel­lec­tu­al” review, had to rethink its prac­tice. “The task the orga­ni­za­tion is up again­st in this sphere,” he con­tin­ued, “is to merge intel­lec­tu­als with work­ers as work­ers as it is elab­o­rat­ing its views. This means that the ques­tions asked, and the meth­ods for dis­cussing and work­ing out the­se prob­lems, must be changed so that it will be pos­si­ble for the work­er to take part.” Rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry had to be more acces­si­ble, the orga­ni­za­tion had to become more dis­ci­plined, and its com­po­si­tion had to change:

Only an orga­ni­za­tion formed as a rev­o­lu­tion­ary work­ers’ orga­ni­za­tion, in which work­ers numer­i­cal­ly pre­dom­i­nate and dom­i­nate it on fun­da­men­tal ques­tions, and which cre­ates broad avenues of exchange with the pro­le­tari­at, thus allow­ing it to draw upon the widest pos­si­ble expe­ri­ence of con­tem­po­rary soci­ety – only an orga­ni­za­tion of this kind can pro­duce a the­o­ry that will be any­thing oth­er than the iso­lat­ed work of spe­cial­ists.

Like Mothé, he argued that mil­i­tants had to “extract the social­ist con­tent in what is con­stant­ly being cre­at­ed by the pro­le­tari­at (whether it is a mat­ter of a strike or of a rev­o­lu­tion), for­mu­late it coher­ent­ly, prop­a­gate it, and show its uni­ver­sal import.”62 The­o­ry must flow from the “his­toric as well as day-to-day expe­ri­ence and action of the pro­le­tari­at,” and even “eco­nom­ic the­o­ry has to be recon­struct­ed around what is con­tained in embryo in the ten­den­cy of work­ers toward equal­i­ty in pay; the entire the­o­ry of pro­duc­tion around the infor­mal orga­ni­za­tion of work­ers in the fac­to­ry; all of polit­i­cal the­o­ry around the prin­ci­ples embod­ied in the sovi­ets and the coun­cils.” But then it would be up to mil­i­tants to extract “what is uni­ver­sal­ly valid in the expe­ri­ence of the pro­le­tari­at,” work this up into a gen­er­al “social­ist out­look,” then prop­a­gate this out­look among the work­ers whose expe­ri­ences served as its very con­di­tion of pos­si­bil­i­ty (214).

Cas­to­ri­adis had attempt­ed pre­cise­ly this in the third part of his “On the Con­tent of Social­ism,” also in 1958. After crit­i­ciz­ing the bureau­crat­ic Bol­she­vik expe­ri­ence and then imag­in­ing a coun­cilist man­age­ment of soci­ety in parts one and two, he turned in the last part to the analy­sis of the labor process at the lev­el of the enter­prise. The con­tent of social­ism is the “priv­i­leged cen­ter, the focal point” with­out which there is only “mere empir­i­cal soci­ol­o­gy.” The con­tent of social­ism could only be demon­strat­ed in the “proletariat’s strug­gle again­st alien­ation” (156).

The main con­tra­dic­tion of cap­i­tal­ism, Cas­to­ri­adis argued, lay in the def­i­n­i­tion of the exchange of labor-pow­er, under­stood as the ten­sion between the “human time” of the labor­er and the ratio­nal­iza­tion imposed by man­age­ment. There can only be a tem­po­rary bal­ance of forces between the two, the work­er resign­ing to a com­pro­mise estab­lish­ing a cer­tain pace of work, which must be dis­solved and rein­vent­ed when the man­u­fac­tur­ing process is trans­formed by new machin­ery. Taylorism’s func­tion was to reduce the het­ero­gene­ity of human time to the “‘one best way’ to accom­plish each oper­a­tion,” stan­dard­iz­ing the pro­ce­dures of work and deter­min­ing an aver­age out­put again­st which wages could be deter­mined – management’s attempt to the elim­i­nate the pos­si­bil­i­ty of wage con­flicts (159-60).

But Taylorism’s “one best way” could not pos­si­bly account for the real­i­ty of the work process, under­tak­en by indi­vid­u­als with mul­ti­plic­i­ties of “best ways” – with their own ges­tures and move­ments, their their own forms of adap­ta­tion to their tools, their own rhythms of exe­cu­tion. The col­lec­tiv­i­ty of indi­vid­u­als on the shop floor would have to under­take its own form of “spon­ta­neous asso­ci­a­tion” again­st the ratio­nal­iza­tion of man­age­ment, even to ful­fill management’s goals (163).

Here the con­cept of the “ele­men­tary group,” the “liv­ing nuclei of pro­duc­tive activ­i­ty,” drawn from The Amer­i­can Work­er and the jour­nals of Mothé as much as from indus­tri­al soci­ol­o­gy, became deci­sive (170).63 Each enter­prise, Cas­to­ri­adis wrote, had a ” dou­ble struc­ture,” its “for­mal orga­ni­za­tion” rep­re­sent­ed in charts and dia­grams, and the infor­mal orga­ni­za­tion, “whose activ­i­ties are car­ried out and sup­port­ed by indi­vid­u­als and groups at all lev­els of the hier­ar­chi­cal pyra­mid accord­ing to the require­ments of their work, the imper­a­tives of pro­duc­tive effi­cien­cy, and the neces­si­ties of their strug­gle again­st exploita­tion” (170). The dis­tinc­tion between the two was not mere­ly a ques­tion of “the­o­ry ver­sus prac­tice,” of an illu­so­ry boss’s ide­ol­o­gy again­st the messy real­i­ty of the shop floor, as some lib­er­al soci­ol­o­gists would have it. It rep­re­sent­ed the real strug­gle by which man­age­ment attempt­ed to encom­pass the entire pro­duc­tion process.

Again­st the “sep­a­rate man­age­ment [direc­tion]” of the bureau­cra­cy, the ele­men­tary group con­sti­tut­ed “the man­age­ment [ges­tion] of their own activ­i­ty” (169-70, 171). The oppo­si­tion between the two, Cas­to­ri­adis argued, was the real char­ac­ter of class strug­gle, the for­mal orga­ni­za­tion coin­cid­ing with the “man­age­ri­al stra­tum” and the infor­mal orga­ni­za­tion rep­re­sent­ing “a dif­fer­ent mode of oper­a­tion of the enter­prise, cen­tered around the real sit­u­a­tion of the exe­cu­tants.” This strug­gle between “direc­tors and exe­cu­tants” char­ac­ter­ized the cap­i­tal­ist work­place, begin­ning at the lev­el of the ele­men­tary group and extend­ing across the whole enter­prise. Since the “posi­tion of each ele­men­tary group is essen­tial­ly iden­ti­cal to that of the oth­ers,” the coop­er­a­tion between the groups leads them “to merge in a class, the class of exe­cu­tants, defined by a com­mu­ni­ty of sit­u­a­tion, func­tion, inter­ests, atti­tude, men­tal­i­ty” (171).

If indus­tri­al soci­ol­o­gy from management’s per­spec­tive was unable to rec­og­nize this class divi­sion in the work­place, and there­fore got lost in the­o­ret­i­cal abstrac­tion, the same went for Marx­ists whose con­cept of class did not begin with “the basic artic­u­la­tions with­in the enter­prise and among the human groups with­in the enter­prise.” Their ide­ol­o­gy blocked them from “see­ing the proletariat’s vital process of class for­ma­tion, of self-cre­ation as the out­come of a per­ma­nent strug­gle that begins with­in pro­duc­tion” (172).

This ide­ol­o­gy had direct polit­i­cal con­se­quences. For Cas­to­ri­adis, even wage demands were nascent expres­sions of the strug­gle by which the infor­mal orga­ni­za­tion of the exe­cu­tants tend­ed towards an attack on the cap­i­tal­ist man­age­ment of pro­duc­tion. If Marx­ist par­ties and unions attempt­ed to restrict the con­tent of the­se strug­gles to the bureau­crat­ic man­age­ment of income redis­tri­b­u­tion, this could only rein­force the directors/executants divi­sion. “To the abstract con­cept of the pro­le­tari­at cor­re­sponds the abstract con­cept of social­ism as nation­al­iza­tion and plan­ning,” Cas­to­ri­adis wrote, “whose sole con­crete con­tent ulti­mate­ly is revealed to be the total­i­tar­i­an dic­ta­tor­ship of the rep­re­sen­ta­tives of this abstrac­tion – of the bureau­crat­ic par­ty.” For the work­ers’ strug­gle to tru­ly real­ize itself, it would have to go fur­ther towards the work­ers’ self-man­age­ment of pro­duc­tion (172).

With­out this thor­ough­go­ing trans­for­ma­tion of soci­ety, cap­i­tal­ism would con­tin­ue on its cur­rent course, with the “tremen­dous waste” gen­er­at­ed by its irra­tional pro­duc­tion process. Each enter­prise unsteadi­ly tried to bal­ance between the decom­po­si­tion of exe­cu­tants into atom­ized indi­vid­u­als, and their rein­te­gra­tion into new uni­fied wholes cor­re­spond­ing to a new­ly ratio­nal­ized pro­duc­tion process (172-3). But the man­age­ri­al plan is inevitably unable to estab­lish a hier­ar­chy of tasks that reflects the real require­ments of pro­duc­tion – while man­age­ment is unaware of the real­i­ty of the process on the shop floor, the exe­cu­tant is sep­a­rat­ed from the plan and unin­ter­est­ed in the results, prone to tak­ing short­cuts (175). Only “the prac­tice, the inven­tion, the cre­ativ­i­ty of the mass of exe­cu­tants,” the col­lec­tiv­i­ty of the ele­men­tary group, can fill the gaps in management’s pro­duc­tion direc­tives (176).

But despite Castoriadis’s affir­ma­tion of the cre­ativ­i­ty of the exe­cu­tants in the pro­duc­tion of com­modi­ties, their role in the pro­duc­tion of the­o­ry was pre­cip­i­tous­ly declin­ing. As Simon, Lefort, and oth­ers had feared, the work­ers’ nar­ra­tives increas­ing­ly became a mere orna­ment in Pou­voir Ouvri­er. Con­firm­ing this wor­ri­some trend, in Novem­ber of 1959 the group vot­ed to shift the empha­sis of the jour­nal even more towards the “polit­i­cal” sec­tion. By the spring of 1961 the sep­a­rate sec­tion titled “La parole aux tra­vailleurs” had van­ished com­plete­ly.64 The paper there­fore end­ed up only ful­fill­ing the sec­ond func­tion out­lined by Mothé – trans­mit­ting rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry to the work­ing class. But with­out the first func­tion – express­ing pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ences – Pou­voir Ouvri­er sim­ply became anoth­er van­guardist pub­li­ca­tion, indis­tin­guish­able from the var­i­ous papers Mothé had orig­i­nal­ly crit­i­cized.

To be fair, it seems that the dis­ap­pear­ance of “La parole aux tra­vailleurs” was in large part the result of a lack of work­er nar­ra­tives. Indeed, this prob­lem cut across the splits in Social­is­me ou Bar­barie. What­ev­er the dif­fer­ences between Lefort’s, Mothé’s, and Pou­voir Ouvri­er’s con­cep­tions of inquiry and the rela­tion between work­ers and intel­lec­tu­als, all were depen­dent on a steady stream of work­er accounts. But to their cha­grin, they found that work­ers’ sim­ply did not want to write.65

It’s sig­nif­i­cant here that all of the­se mod­els imag­ined work­ers’ inquiry in the same way: not the ques­tion­naire, as Marx sug­gest­ed, but the writ­ten tes­ti­mony ini­ti­at­ed by Romano. Lefort had gone as far as to explic­it­ly crit­i­cize the “sta­tis­ti­cal­ly-based” strat­e­gy of work­ers pos­ing “thou­sands of ques­tions” to each oth­er, since the­se would result in mere numer­i­cal cor­re­la­tions and would be unable to bring out the “sys­tems of liv­ing and think­ing” of “con­crete indi­vid­u­als.” Even worse, a “ques­tion imposed from the out­side might be an irri­tant for the sub­ject being ques­tioned, shap­ing an arti­fi­cial respon­se or, in any case, imprint­ing upon it a char­ac­ter that it would not oth­er­wise have had.”66 But it is hard not to won­der if the dearth of work­er respons­es has to do with this speci­fic form of inquiry. Though work­er nar­ra­tives might allow work­ers to express them­selves more organ­i­cal­ly, they are nonethe­less much more dif­fi­cult to com­pose than respond­ing to a ques­tion­naire.

Just as Pou­voir Ouvri­er saw itself mov­ing away from its orig­i­nal goals, Infor­ma­tion et Liaisons Ouvrières also ran into some dif­fi­cul­ties. Unlike the major­i­ty of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, which assert­ed the neces­si­ty of a for­mal par­ty, com­plete with a kind of cen­tral com­mit­tee, the ILO minor­i­ty had advo­cat­ed a more decen­tral­ized struc­ture, based on autonomous work­er cells, where every­thing could be open­ly dis­cussed. The core of the group would be the­se cells, based in var­i­ous firms, and the role of ILO would not be to dis­sem­i­nate ideas from above, as Pou­voir Ouvri­er would soon do, but to cir­cu­late expe­ri­ences, infor­ma­tion, and ideas between the­se var­i­ous cells. It was to be some­thing of a net­work, pro­vid­ing links between dif­fer­ent work­ers, very much along the lines of Cor­re­spon­dence. Where­as Pou­voir Ouvri­er want­ed to prop­a­gate the social­ist project among work­ers, ILO, Lefort lat­er recalled, aimed to “dis­trib­ute a bul­let­in as unpro­gram­mat­ic as pos­si­ble attempt­ing pri­mar­i­ly to give work­ers a voice and to aid in coor­di­nat­ing expe­ri­ences in indus­try – that is, those expe­ri­ences result­ing from attempts at autonomous strug­gle.”67

It should be not­ed that the minor­i­ty which split off to form ILO was less unit­ed by a com­mon per­spec­tive than by its gen­er­al oppo­si­tion to the major­i­ty that pushed for a par­ty. It’s there­fore unsur­pris­ing that this new group of about twen­ty would soon run into its own inter­nal dif­fer­ences. A fis­sure began to appear between the prin­ci­pal ani­ma­tors of the group: Lefort, who wished to com­bine the authen­tic­i­ty of the work­ers’ voice with some kind of the­o­ry, felt that Simon not only want­ed to aban­don all signs of direc­tion, ori­en­ta­tion, and par­ty line, but even inter­pre­ta­tion and the­o­ry as such. He would lat­er reflect:

The essen­tial thing was that the­se peo­ple speak of their expe­ri­ence in every­day life. In a sense [Simon] was absolute­ly cor­rect. We all thought that there was an evil spell of The­o­ry detached from, and designed to mask, expe­ri­ence and every­day­ness. But it was still a mat­ter of expe­ri­ence as actu­al expe­ri­ence and every­day­ness, not banal­i­ty. Expe­ri­ence is not raw; it always implies an ele­ment of inter­pre­ta­tion and opens itself to dis­cus­sion. Speech in every­day life tac­it­ly or explic­it­ly refus­es anoth­er speech and solic­its a respon­se. For Simon, the speech of the exploit­ed, who­ev­er he might be, what­ev­er he might say, was in essence good. He knew like all of us that the dom­i­nant bour­geois or demo­c­ra­t­ic dis­course weighs heav­i­ly on the speech of the exploit­ed. This knowl­edge did not weak­en his con­vic­tion. The speech of the exploit­ed was suf­fi­cient unto itself. Essen­tial­ly, he said that a per­son speaks about what he sees and feels; we have only to lis­ten to him, or bet­ter yet record his remarks in our bul­let­in, which is our raison d’être.68

Lefort, who left the group in 1960 (prompt­ing them to rename them­selves Infor­ma­tions et Cor­re­spon­dance Ouvrières, ICO), argued that no mat­ter what, some kind of inter­pre­ta­tion will always slip into inquiry, even if only in the selec­tion of texts, the order in which they would be pub­lished, and so forth. To deny this was to deceive one­self.

In oth­er words, the orig­i­nal project of work­ers’ inquiry broke down on both sides. Pou­voir Ouvri­er became anoth­er van­guardist jour­nal, indis­tin­guish­able from a Trot­sky­ist paper, try­ing to edu­cate the work­ing class through sim­pli­fied ren­di­tions of eso­ter­ic the­o­ries devel­oped with­out ref­er­ence to the con­crete expe­ri­ences of the work­ing class. On the oth­er, ICO tricked itself into ignor­ing the role of intel­lec­tu­als, only to find itself immo­bi­lized, chas­ing after some pure pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ence untar­nished by the­o­ret­i­cal inter­pre­ta­tion.

As for Cas­to­ri­adis, he broke with his own group in 1962. His reflec­tions on the­se debates had pro­duced an even more dras­tic effect: Cas­to­ri­adis had come to the con­clu­sion that Marx­ism as a the­o­ry had been defin­i­tive­ly dis­proved. “Mod­ern Cap­i­tal­ism and Rev­o­lu­tion,” first writ­ten between 1959 and 1961, had been pub­lished before he left with the dis­claimer that its “ideas are not nec­es­sar­i­ly shared by the entire Social­is­me ou Bar­barie group” (226). Draw­ing on his day job as pro­fes­sion­al econ­o­mist for the OECD, Cas­to­ri­adis drew up a dev­as­tat­ing bal­ance sheet for Marx­ist the­o­ry. In the con­text of the post­war boom, Marx­ists were con­tin­u­ing to claim that cap­i­tal­ism, through struc­tural unem­ploy­ment and the increase in the rate of exploita­tion, was impov­er­ish­ing and pau­per­iz­ing the work­er. But in real­i­ty, the sys­tem had yield­ed full employ­ment and wages were grow­ing more rapid­ly than ever, lead­ing to a mas­sive expan­sion of con­sump­tion which both pro­vid­ed a steady source of effec­tive demand and rep­re­sent­ed a major rise in the stan­dard of liv­ing of the work­ing class. Marx­ist mil­i­tants had exposed them­selves as worse than use­less; unions had become “cogs in the sys­tem” which “nego­ti­ate the work­ers’ docil­i­ty in return for high­er wages,” while pol­i­tics “takes place exclu­sive­ly among spe­cial­ists,” the sup­posed work­ers’ par­ties dom­i­nat­ed by bureau­crats (227).

As Lefort him­self had sug­gest­ed, the pro­le­tar­i­an expe­ri­ence that Social­is­me ou Barbarie’s inquires had attempt­ed to reach would have to be coun­ter­posed to the rigid deter­mi­na­tion of eco­nom­ic laws. “For tra­di­tion­al Marx­ism,” Cas­to­ri­adis wrote, “the ‘objec­tive’ con­tra­dic­tions of cap­i­tal­ism were essen­tial­ly eco­nom­ic ones, and the system’s rad­i­cal inabil­i­ty to sat­is­fy the work­ing class’s eco­nom­ic demands made the­se the motive force of class strug­gle.” But under­ly­ing this premise was an “objec­tivist and mech­a­nis­tic” fal­la­cy which rein­forced the notion that spe­cial­ists and bureau­crats who could under­stand history’s “objec­tive laws” would be respon­si­ble for the analy­sis of cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety and the “elim­i­na­tion of pri­vate prop­er­ty and the mar­ket.” Stuck with­in this fal­la­cy, tra­di­tion­al Marx­ists could not even explain their own fix­a­tions; they failed to grasp that wages had increased because they were actu­al­ly deter­mined by class strug­gle, and the demands put forth by wage strug­gles could be met as long as they did not exceed pro­duc­tiv­i­ty increas­es (227).

Like the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy, Cas­to­ri­adis argued that the con­tra­dic­tion of cap­i­tal­ism had to be locat­ed in “pro­duc­tion and work,” and specif­i­cal­ly in terms of the “alien­ation expe­ri­enced by every work­er.” But unlike his stal­wart Marx­ist pre­de­ces­sors, Cas­to­ri­adis rec­og­nized that this the­o­ry was incom­pat­i­ble with the lan­guage of val­ue, and reject­ed “eco­nom­ic” def­i­n­i­tions of class. The oppo­si­tion between direc­tors and exe­cu­tants thor­ough­ly replaced the one between own­ers of the means of pro­duc­tion to non-own­ers. This had major impli­ca­tions for the view of cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment itself: the “ide­al ten­den­cy” of “bureau­crat­ic cap­i­tal­ism” would be “the con­sti­tu­tion of a total­ly hier­ar­chized soci­ety in con­tin­u­ous expan­sion where people’s increas­ing alien­ation in their work would be com­pen­sat­ed by a ‘ris­ing stan­dard of liv­ing’ and where all ini­tia­tive would be given over to orga­niz­ers” (229).  This project, how­ev­er, was prone to the con­tra­dic­tion of bureau­crat­ic ratio­nal­i­ty, “capitalism’s need to reduce work­ers to the role of mere exe­cu­tants and the inabil­i­ty of this sys­tem to func­tion if it suc­ceed­ed in achiev­ing this required objec­tive.” The con­tra­dic­tion, then, was that “cap­i­tal­ism needs to real­ize simul­ta­ne­ous­ly the par­tic­i­pa­tion and exclu­sion of the work­ers in the pro­duc­tion process” (228). This inher­ent ten­den­cy of cap­i­tal­ism could “nev­er com­plete­ly pre­vail,” since “cap­i­tal­ism can­not exist with­out the pro­le­tari­at,” and the proletariat’s con­tin­u­ous strug­gle to change the labor process and the stan­dard of liv­ing played a fun­da­men­tal role in cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment: “The extrac­tion of ‘use val­ue from labor pow­er’ is not a tech­ni­cal oper­a­tion; it is a process of bit­ter strug­gle in which half the time, so to speak, the cap­i­tal­ists turn out to be losers” (248).

The expe­ri­ence of this strug­gle, and the inad­e­qua­cy of reformism with­in it, had shorn the exe­cu­tants of any delu­sion­al faith in “objec­tive” con­tra­dic­tions as the guar­an­tee of bureau­crat­ic orga­ni­za­tions. Now the pro­le­tari­at could final­ly rec­og­nize that the true rev­o­lu­tion­ary hori­zon was “work­ers’ man­age­ment and the over­com­ing of the cap­i­tal­ist val­ues of pro­duc­tion and con­sump­tion” (230).

In oth­er words, the demands of this move­ment would not be at the lev­el of wages, which rep­re­sent­ed the alien­at­ed sub­sti­tute for a moti­va­tion dri­ven by cre­ative work. The source of moti­va­tion required for social cohe­sion no longer lay in “sig­ni­fy­ing” activ­i­ties, but sole­ly in the pur­suit of income. Even the clas­si­cal careerist goal of pro­mo­tion in the hier­ar­chy of the bureau­cra­cy ulti­mate­ly led to high­er income (276). But since per­son­al income can­not lead to accu­mu­la­tion – it can­not make a work­er a cap­i­tal­ist – “income there­fore only has mean­ing through the con­sump­tion it allows.” Since con­sump­tion could not rest sole­ly on exist­ing needs, which were “at the point of sat­u­ra­tion, due to con­stant ris­es in income,” cap­i­tal­ists had to gen­er­ate new needs through the intro­duc­tion of new com­modi­ties, and the alien­at­ed cul­ture of adver­tis­ing which embed­ded them in every­day life (277).

Yet the increase in out­put which was required for a con­stant­ly ris­ing lev­el of con­sump­tion could only be ensured through the automa­tion of pro­duc­tion, capitalism’s attempt at “the rad­i­cal abo­li­tion of its labor rela­tion prob­lems by abol­ish­ing the work­er” (283). And this is the con­text in which the “wage rela­tion becomes an intrin­si­cal­ly con­tra­dic­to­ry rela­tion,” since a rapid­ly devel­op­ing tech­nol­o­gy, as opposed to the sta­t­ic tech­nol­o­gy of pre­vi­ous soci­eties, pre­vent­ed man­age­ment from set­tling on any per­ma­nent means for the “sta­bi­liza­tion of class rela­tions in the work­place,” and pre­vent­ed “tech­ni­cal knowl­edge from becom­ing crys­tal­lized forever in a speci­fic cat­e­go­ry of the labor­ing pop­u­la­tion” (260). The whole his­to­ry of class strug­gle with­in cap­i­tal­ist pro­duc­tion could be under­stood in the­se terms. The intro­duc­tion of machin­ery in the ear­ly 19th cen­tu­ry was met with the pri­mor­dial acts of indus­tri­al sab­o­tage. Despite the defeat of its Lud­dite begin­nings, the work­ers’ strug­gle con­tin­ued with­in the fac­to­ry, lead­ing to the intro­duc­tion of piece­work, wages based on out­put. Now that “norms” of pro­duc­tion were the pri­ma­ry line of strug­gle, cap­i­tal­ism fought back with the Tay­lorist sci­en­tific man­age­ment of norms. The work­ers’ resis­tance to man­age­ment yield­ed the ide­o­log­i­cal respons­es of indus­tri­al psy­chol­o­gy and soci­ol­o­gy, with their goals of “inte­grat­ing” work­ers into alien­at­ed work­places. But it was impos­si­ble, even by the­se mea­sures, to sup­press the fun­da­men­tal antag­o­nism of work­ers towards the pro­duc­tion process – in fact, in the most advanced cap­i­tal­ist coun­tries, with the high­est wages and the most “mod­ern” method of pro­duc­tion and man­age­ment, the “dai­ly con­flict at the point of pro­duc­tion reach­es incred­i­ble pro­por­tions” (264).

Accord­ing to Cas­to­ri­adis, the tra­di­tion­al Marx­ist con­cep­tion was unable to com­pre­hend this his­tor­i­cal process. For Marx­ism, “cap­i­tal­ists them­selves do not act – they are ‘act­ed upon’ by eco­nom­ic motives that deter­mine them just as grav­i­ta­tion gov­erns the move­ment of bod­ies” (262). But his­to­ry proved that the rul­ing class adapt­ed its strate­gies accord­ing to its sub­jec­tive expe­ri­ence of class strug­gle, learn­ing that wages can buy the work­ers’ docil­i­ty, that state inter­ven­tion can sta­bi­lize the econ­o­my, and that full employ­ment can pre­vent the rev­o­lu­tion­ary upheaval which would result from a rep­e­ti­tion of 1929 (269-70).

So the new rev­o­lu­tion­ary cri­tique of soci­ety had to shed the dis­trac­tion of the objec­tivist the­o­ry and direct­ly denounce the irra­tional and inhu­man results of bureau­crat­ic man­age­ment and alien­at­ed work. And cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment had ren­dered the over­com­ing of alien­ation defin­i­tive­ly pos­si­ble, since at the tech­ni­cal lev­el “the entire plan­ning bureau­cra­cy already can be replaced by elec­tron­ic cal­cu­la­tors,” and on the social lev­el the irra­tional­i­ty of the bureau­crat­ic orga­ni­za­tion of soci­ety had been com­plete­ly unveiled (299).

Just as Cas­to­ri­adis drew up a bal­ance sheet of “tra­di­tion­al Marx­ism,” we can now eval­u­ate this par­tic­u­lar moment of rup­ture. The new the­o­ry of class was expe­di­ent for an analy­sis of the planned econ­o­my of the Sovi­et Union as “bureau­crat­ic cap­i­tal­ism,” for­mu­lat­ed in dia­logue with the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy. Cas­to­ri­adis rad­i­cal­ized their claim that cap­i­tal­ism emerged from rela­tions on the shop floor, rather than own­er­ship of the means of pro­duc­tion.69 The ratio­nal ker­nel of this the­o­ry was clear: the process which began with the Bol­she­vik enthu­si­asm for Tay­lorism, the adop­tion by the Rus­sian bureau­cra­cy of forms of orga­ni­za­tion of the labor process pio­neered by cap­i­tal­ist man­age­ment and soci­ol­o­gy, shat­tered the Sec­ond Inter­na­tion­al phi­los­o­phy of his­to­ry. The advance­ment of the pro­duc­tive forces, whether they were pri­vate­ly or pub­licly owned, had become an ele­ment of the ratio­nal­i­ty which gov­erned ever more com­plex forms of social strat­i­fi­ca­tion.

How­ev­er, Castoriadis’s new the­o­ry was sub­ject to the same blindspots as his pre­de­ces­sors, unable to explain class rela­tions in their uni­ty with exchange rela­tions. The ques­tion of tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment itself pos­es fun­da­men­tal ques­tions about his analy­sis. While Cas­to­ri­adis cor­rect­ly crit­i­cized the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the devel­op­ment of the pro­duc­tive forces with the polit­i­cal project of social­ism, he did not explain how this process was sit­u­at­ed with­in the social rela­tions of cap­i­tal­ism. Tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment was an expres­sion of the ratio­nal­i­ty of man­age­ment; while Cas­to­ri­adis bril­liant­ly out­lined the con­tra­dic­tions of this ratio­nal­i­ty at the lev­el of the enter­prise, the under­ly­ing sys­tem-wide ques­tions of Marx’s analy­sis, to which each vol­ume of Cap­i­tal had been devot­ed, were now left unan­swered. If tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment is a waste­ful process, why does a prof­it-seek­ing enter­prise under­take it? How is it able to make large expen­di­tures in fixed cap­i­tal, in expen­sive machin­ery, and con­tin­ue to repro­duce its ongo­ing con­di­tions of pro­duc­tion? In Castoriadis’s analy­sis, tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment is prac­ti­cal­ly the result of a lack of moti­va­tion, which can only be over­come through the expan­sion in con­sump­tion that is enabled by tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment and its aug­men­ta­tion of out­put. We now lack the the­o­ret­i­cal resources to under­stand why pro­duc­tion has become the end of human exis­tence, or what “max­i­mum pro­duc­tion” would mean – as though the capitalist’s goal were to own more things rather than to make more prof­its.

Just as fun­da­men­tal was the ques­tion of this system’s basic pre­con­di­tions. While Cas­to­ri­adis explained cap­i­tal­ism as the fullest expres­sion of alien­ation and reifi­ca­tion, it was by no means clear how the­se phe­nom­e­na were speci­fic to cap­i­tal­ism, and what they had to do with the eco­nom­ic dynam­ics he was so quick to dis­miss. Under­ly­ing management’s attempt to direct labor-pow­er towards the max­i­mum pos­si­ble out­put was the fact that cap­i­tal­ist man­age­ment was com­pelled to exploit labor-pow­er to the most prof­itable extent – and that work­ers were equal­ly com­pelled to sell their labor-pow­er in exchange for a wage. What account­ed for this com­pul­sion?

If the­se ques­tions were some­how incom­pat­i­ble with the analy­sis of the cap­i­tal­ist enter­prise, this would not only inval­i­date Marx­ism – it would make the cap­i­tal­ist nature of the enter­prise inex­plic­a­ble. But by start­ing from inquiries into the trans­for­ma­tion of the labor process, and shift­ing to a his­tor­i­cal account of the log­ic of cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment, Social­is­me ou Bar­barie had served as an indis­pens­able foun­da­tion.

Science and Strategy: Operaismo

The influ­ence of Cas­to­ri­adis, Lefort, Mothé and oth­ers from Social­is­me ou Bar­barie was quite appar­ent in the Italy of the ear­ly 1960s. Toni Negri, for instance, recalls how Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, “the jour­nal that Cor­nelius Cas­to­ri­adis and Claude Lefort pub­lished in Paris,” became “my dai­ly bread in that peri­od.”70

Direct links, in fact, had already been estab­lished. In 1954 Danilo Mon­taldi, who had ear­lier been expelled from the Ital­ian Com­mu­nist Par­ty (PCI), trans­lat­ed “The Amer­i­can Work­er,” not from the orig­i­nal Eng­lish, but from the French trans­la­tions that appeared in Social­is­me ou Bar­barie. He trav­eled to Paris that year, meet­ing the mil­i­tants of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie and ini­ti­at­ing an exchange with none oth­er than Daniel Mothé, whose diary he would lat­er trans­late into Ital­ian. Mon­taldi would main­tain the­se con­nec­tions, return­ing to Paris in 1957, and again in 1960, to strength­en ties with Cas­to­ri­adis, Lefort, and Edgar Mor­in, among oth­ers.71

Mon­taldi not only played an indis­pens­able role in the trans­mis­sion of the ideas of Social­is­me ou Bar­barie into the Ital­ian con­text, he put them into prac­tice, con­duct­ing his own brand of work­ers’ inquiry. The­se prac­ti­cal­ly unprece­dent­ed inves­ti­ga­tions, which relied on a plu­ral­i­ty of meth­ods, from nar­ra­tive to soci­o­log­i­cal inquiry to oral his­to­ry, result­ed in a series of high­ly influ­en­tial pub­li­ca­tions: “Milan, Korea,” an inquiry into south­ern immi­grants liv­ing in Milan, Auto­bi­ografie del­la leg­gera, and final­ly Mil­i­tan­ti politi­ci di base.

Mon­taldi pro­posed an entire­ly dif­fer­ent way of see­ing things. The objec­tive of inquiry was to uncov­er the every­day strug­gles of the work­ing class, inde­pen­dent­ly of all the offi­cial insti­tu­tions that claimed to rep­re­sent it. Yet as Ser­gio Bolog­na recalls, Montaldi’s care­ful his­to­ries reject­ed myth­i­cal trib­utes to spon­tane­ity, opt­ing instead for rich descrip­tions of “microsys­tems of strug­gle,” the polit­i­cal cul­tures of resis­tance that made seem­ing­ly spon­ta­neous move­ments pos­si­ble.72 This new focus on buried net­works and obscured his­to­ries would have tremen­dous ram­i­fi­ca­tions.

In addi­tion to his own inves­ti­ga­tions, Mon­taldi orga­nized a group in Cre­mona called Grup­po di Unità Pro­le­taria. Last­ing from 1957-1962, it brought togeth­er a num­ber of young mil­i­tants, all unit­ed by their desire to dis­cov­er the work­ing class as it real­ly was, beyond the frigid world of par­ty cards. One of the­se young mil­i­tants was Romano Alquati.

Alquati, trained as a soci­ol­o­gist, would be a piv­otal fig­ure in the for­ma­tion of the jour­nal Quaderni Rossi, the ini­tial encoun­ter of het­ero­dox mil­i­tants from the Ital­ian Social­ist Par­ty and the Ital­ian Com­mu­nist Par­ty which would found operais­mo, or “work­erism.” Quaderni Rossi began with a debate over soci­ol­o­gy, whose use by the boss­es had yield­ed new forms of labor man­age­ment and dis­ci­pline, but had also gen­er­at­ed invalu­able infor­ma­tion about the labor process. While a crit­i­cal Marx­ist appro­pri­a­tion of soci­ol­o­gy was on the agen­da, its rela­tion to Montaldi’s work­ers’ inquiry was not entire­ly clear. Some in Quaderni Rossi – the “soci­ol­o­gist” fac­tion sur­round­ing Vit­to­rio Rieser – believed that this new sci­ence, though asso­ci­at­ed with bour­geois aca­d­e­mics, could be used as a basis for the renewal of the insti­tu­tions of the work­ers’ move­ment. Oth­ers, includ­ing Alquati, felt soci­ol­o­gy could only be, at best, an ini­tial step towards a specif­i­cal­ly mil­i­tant col­lab­o­ra­tion between researchers and work­ers, a new form of knowl­edge which would be char­ac­ter­ized as “core­search.”73

Alquati’s inquiries would prove to be fun­da­men­tal in the devel­op­ment of workerism’s eco­nom­ic analy­sis. Steve Wright has bril­liant­ly traced the break which can be observed between Alquati’s “Report on the ‘New Forces,’” a study of FIAT pub­lished in the first issue of Quaderni Rossi in 1961, and the 1962 study of Olivet­ti. In the first text, along with the two oth­ers pub­lished that year on FIAT, Alquati oper­ates, inter­est­ing­ly enough, with­in the prob­lem­at­ic estab­lished in Social­is­me ou Bar­barie.74 The “new forces” at FIAT were the younger gen­er­a­tion, brought in to work the recent­ly installed machin­ery that had deskilled more expe­ri­enced pro­fes­sion­al work­ers. Man­age­ment imposed hier­ar­chies with­in the work­force – a divi­sion of labor sep­a­rat­ing tech­ni­cians and skilled work­ers from the major­i­ty, along with divi­sive pay scales. But this process of ratio­nal­iza­tion was sub­ject to the con­tra­dic­to­ry irra­tional­i­ty Cas­to­ri­adis had described; and it gave rise to forms of “invis­i­ble orga­ni­za­tion” result­ing from the fact that man­age­ment was con­strained to give exe­cu­tants respon­si­bil­i­ty while at the same time try­ing to repress their con­trol. Alquati also drew polit­i­cal con­clu­sions rem­i­nis­cent of his French pre­cur­sors: the work­ers were uncon­vinced by the reformism of the offi­cial work­ers’ move­ment, and instead expressed inter­est in work­ers’ man­age­ment, in an end to the alien­at­ing process of work.

Alongside Alquati’s text in the inau­gu­ral issue of Quaderni Rossi, Ranziero Panzieri, the founder of the review, pub­lished a high­ly influ­en­tial arti­cle called “The Cap­i­tal­ist Use of Machin­ery: Marx Again­st the Objec­tivists.” Writ­ten after Alquati’s “Report,” it reflect­ed on the themes raised by Alquati, refer­ring through­out to the work­ers “stud­ied in the present issue of Quaderni Rossi,” while push­ing towards a new frame­work. Panzieri, who had not only writ­ten the intro­duc­tion to the Ital­ian edi­tion of Mothé’s diary, but was also the Ital­ian trans­la­tor of the sec­ond vol­ume of Cap­i­tal, was not pre­pared to drop Marx’s lan­guage in favor of that of direc­tors and exe­cu­tants:

the work­er, as own­er and sell­er of his labour-pow­er, enters into rela­tion with cap­i­tal only as an indi­vid­u­al; coop­er­a­tion, the mutu­al rela­tion­ship between work­ers, only begins with the labour process, but by then they have ceased to belong to them­selves. On enter­ing the labour process they are incor­po­rat­ed into cap­i­tal.75

For Panzieri, the means by which this incor­po­ra­tion took place was machin­ery, in the pas­sage from man­u­fac­ture to the devel­oped lev­el of large-scale indus­try. Cit­ing Marx’s remark that in the cap­i­tal­ist fac­to­ry, “the automa­ton itself is the sub­ject, and the work­ers are mere­ly con­scious organs,” Panzieri’s tar­get was the labor bureaucracy’s enthu­si­asm for tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment.76 Accord­ing to this ortho­dox posi­tion, tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment rep­re­sent­ed a tran­shis­tor­i­cal force, deter­min­ing the pro­gres­sive move­ment through mod­es of pro­duc­tion. To dri­ve down the Ital­ian road to social­ism, the Ital­ian work­er would have to sub­mit to the automa­tons in the auto­mo­bile fac­to­ries.77

It is sig­nif­i­cant that while Panzieri made many of the same his­tor­i­cal obser­va­tions as Cas­to­ri­adis, he defend­ed them as dis­cov­er­ies inter­nal to Marx’s the­o­ry. The same went for the ris­ing stan­dard of liv­ing. Accord­ing to Panzieri, “Marx fore­saw an increase not just of the nom­i­nal but also of the real wage”: “the more the growth of cap­i­tal is rapid, the more the mate­ri­al sit­u­a­tion of the work­ing-class improves. And the more the wage is linked to the growth of cap­i­tal, the more direct becomes labour’s depen­dence upon cap­i­tal.“78 For this rea­son, though now in agree­ment with Cas­to­ri­adis, Panzieri con­sid­ered wage strug­gles a func­tion of the unions’ bureau­crat­ic incor­po­ra­tion of labor into cap­i­tal; only by direct­ly attack­ing capital’s con­trol and replac­ing it with work­ers’ con­trol could tech­no­log­i­cal ratio­nal­i­ty be sub­ject­ed to “the social­ist use of machi­nes.” Indeed, for Panzieri, Quaderni Rossi’s inquiries showed that the work­ers were already com­ing to this view. How­ev­er, he still warned again­st draw­ing any direct­ly polit­i­cal con­clu­sions: “The ‘new’ work­ing-class demands which char­ac­ter­ize trade-union strug­gles (stud­ied in the present issue of Quaderni Rossi) do not direct­ly fur­nish a rev­o­lu­tion­ary polit­i­cal con­tent, nor do they imply an auto­mat­ic devel­op­ment in that direc­tion.”

When Alquati’s own inves­ti­ga­tions turned from FIAT to Olivet­ti – from a fac­to­ry that made cars to one that made cal­cu­la­tors and type­writ­ers – he was able to draw on and build upon Panzieri’s analy­sis of tech­nol­o­gy. In the title “Organ­ic Com­po­si­tion of Cap­i­tal and Labor-Pow­er at Olivet­ti,” Alquati defin­i­tive­ly brought the dis­course of work­ers’ inquiry back into the lan­guage of Marx­ist eco­nom­ic analy­sis, and implic­it­ly sug­gest­ed a new con­cept: class com­po­si­tion.

While the seeds of class com­po­si­tion can be already observed in the “Report on the ‘New Forces,’” inso­far as Alquati attempt­ed to describe the mate­ri­al exis­tence of the work­ing class, its behav­iors and forms of inter­ac­tions and orga­ni­za­tion, the ear­lier inquiry had treat­ed machin­ery pure­ly as a means by which direc­tors reduced work­ers to exe­cu­tants. Deskilling was sim­ply a way to break the will of the exe­cu­tants, and new machin­ery an instru­ment in this process. Now, in the inquiry at Olivet­ti, the increas­ing organ­ic com­po­si­tion of cap­i­tal was seen from the work­ing-class view­point as the recom­po­si­tion of labor-pow­er, the trans­for­ma­tion of the very forms of work­er coop­er­a­tion. Tech­nol­o­gy, in this sense, rep­re­sent­ed the field in which the social rela­tions of class were embed­ded, but as part of a dynam­ic process in which the con­flict between the extrac­tion of sur­plus val­ue and work­ers’ insub­or­di­na­tion shaped the process of pro­duc­tion. Direc­tors were not mere par­a­sites; while it was true that exe­cu­tants infor­mal­ly orga­nized their con­crete labor, the func­tion of man­age­ment was to plan and coor­di­nate this labor with­in the val­oriza­tion process. Work­ers’ strug­gles would have to artic­u­late forms of polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tion that respond­ed to this tech­no­log­i­cal recom­po­si­tion, and in this con­text self-man­age­ment would no longer be ade­quate – except as the work­ers’ self-man­age­ment of the strug­gle again­st the cap­i­tal rela­tion.

If the­se inquiries result­ed in the begin­nings of a new sci­en­tific prob­lem­at­ic, and an enthu­si­as­tic embrace of new forces, then inquiry turned out to be more polit­i­cal­ly divi­sive than the par­tic­i­pants had real­ized. After the riots of Piaz­za Statu­to in 1962, when work­ers attacked the offices of the Unione Ital­iana del Lavoro (UIL) in Tur­in, Quaderni Rossi would be torn apart by inter­nal dis­agree­ments.79 While Tron­ti, Alquati, Negri, and oth­ers believed that this rep­re­sent­ed a new phase of the class strug­gle, an oppor­tu­ni­ty to break with the increas­ing­ly unten­able strat­e­gy of col­lab­o­ra­tion with the unions, Panzieri saw it as a polit­i­cal impasse. Uncon­vinced that autonomous work­ers’ strug­gles could advance a last­ing orga­ni­za­tion­al form – even if the form of the unions had been exhaust­ed – Panzieri thought that a renewed empha­sis on inquiry and soci­o­log­i­cal research would be required before any move­ment could emerge.

This polit­i­cal dif­fer­ence was, sig­nif­i­cant­ly, also a the­o­ret­i­cal one. At an edi­to­ri­al meet­ing at the end of 1963, Panzieri remarked that an essay of Tronti’s was

for me a fas­ci­nat­ing resume of a whole series of errors that the work­ers’ Left can com­mit in this moment. It is fas­ci­nat­ing because it is very Hegelian, in the orig­i­nal sense, as a new way of re-liv­ing a phi­los­o­phy of his­to­ry. It is pre­cise­ly a phi­los­o­phy of his­to­ry of the work­ing class. One speaks, for exam­ple, of the par­ty, but in that con­text the con­cept of the par­ty can­not be deduced or forced in; one can only deduce the self-organ­i­sa­tion of the class at the lev­el of neo-cap­i­tal­ism.80

In Jan­u­ary of the fol­low­ing year, this essay would launch the new jour­nal Classe Opera­ia, formed by Tronti’s fac­tion. His con­tro­ver­sial essay would famous­ly announce, in the lines which have now become the inescapable catch­phrase of work­erism: “We too have worked with a con­cept that puts cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment first, and work­ers sec­ond. This is a mis­take. And now we have to turn the prob­lem on its head, reverse the polar­i­ty, and start again from the begin­ning: and the begin­ning is the class strug­gle of the work­ing class.”81

In the fall of that year, the last of his life, Panzieri spoke at a Tur­in sem­i­nar called “Social­ist Uses of Work­ers’ Inquiry,” alongside the “soci­ol­o­gist” fac­tion that had remained with Quaderni Rossi. Here he argued for “the use of soci­o­log­i­cal tools for the polit­i­cal aims of the work­ing class,” and in doing so pre­sent­ed a kind of coun­ter­point to “Lenin in Eng­land.” In his inter­ven­tion, pub­lished the fol­low­ing year in Quaderni Rossi, Panzieri defend­ed the anti-his­tori­cist char­ac­ter of inquiry, claim­ing that Marx’s Cap­i­tal itself had the fea­tures of a soci­o­log­i­cal analy­sis:

In Marx’s Eco­nom­ic and Philo­soph­i­cal Man­u­scripts and oth­er ear­ly writ­ings the point of com­par­ison is alien­at­ed being (“the work­er suf­fers in his very exis­tence, the cap­i­tal­ist in the prof­it on his dead mam­mon”) and the cri­tique of polit­i­cal econ­o­my is linked to a his­tor­i­cal and philo­soph­i­cal con­cep­tion of human­i­ty and his­to­ry. How­ev­er, Marx’s Cap­i­tal aban­dons this meta­phys­i­cal and philo­soph­i­cal out­look and the lat­er cri­tique is lev­elled exclu­sive­ly at a speci­fic sit­u­a­tion that is cap­i­tal­ism, with­out claim­ing to be a uni­ver­sal anti-cri­tique of the one-sid­ed­ness of bour­geois polit­i­cal econ­o­my.

Work­ers’ inquiry as a sci­en­tific prac­tice had to be elab­o­rat­ed on this basis – by advanc­ing its own one-sid­ed­ness in respon­se. For Panzieri, Marx­ist soci­ol­o­gy “refus­es to iden­ti­fy the work­ing class with the move­ment of cap­i­tal and claims that it is impos­si­ble to auto­mat­i­cal­ly trace a study of the work­ing class back to the move­ment of cap­i­tal.”82

But what was the mean­ing of this one-sid­ed­ness? Panzieri had indi­cat­ed his dis­taste for Tronti’s grandiose inver­sion, and this was indeed a per­ti­nent crit­i­cism, pre­sag­ing the increas­ing dis­tance of work­erist the­o­ry from the con­crete prac­tice of inquiry over the course of the 1960s and 1970s. How­ev­er, Panzieri was unable to pro­pose a new polit­i­cal approach; while he had tied the prac­tice of inquiry to a Marx­ist eco­nom­ic analy­sis, he was unable to bring this the­o­ry to bear on the real polit­i­cal activ­i­ty that was begin­ning to emerge, and which would char­ac­ter­ize over a decade of class strug­gle to fol­low. Recent­ly Tron­ti has reflect­ed on this split:

Panzieri accused me of “Hegelian­ism,” of “phi­los­o­phy of his­to­ry.” This read­ing, and the accu­sa­tion that under­lies it, will often return; after all, Hegelian­ism was a real fac­tor, it was effec­tive­ly there, always had been; while this idea of a “phi­los­o­phy of his­to­ry” absolute­ly did not… Ours was not a the­o­ry that imposed itself from out­side on real data, but the oppo­site: that is, the attempt to recov­er those real data, giv­ing them mean­ing with­in a the­o­ret­i­cal hori­zon.83

Indeed, work­erism would, for its entire his­to­ry, be tor­tured by the ten­sion between “phi­los­o­phy of his­to­ry” and “real data”; this lives on in today’s “post-work­erism.” But the­se are the risks tak­en by those whose eyes are on the “the­o­ret­i­cal hori­zon.” It is impor­tant to note that Alquati, who did not share Panzieri’s views on the incom­pat­i­bil­i­ty of research and insur­rec­tion, split from Quaderni Rossi and joined Classe Opera­ia. His con­cep­tion of inquiry was a mil­i­tant and polit­i­cal one.

For this rea­son Tronti’s the­o­ret­i­cal syn­the­sis, in his 1965 essay “Marx, Labor-Pow­er, Work­ing Class,” has to be reex­plored. This essay makes up the bulk of Work­ers and Cap­i­tal (1966), with only a cou­ple con­clud­ing sec­tions trans­lat­ed into Eng­lish. Unlike the rest of the book, which con­sists of arti­cles writ­ten for Quaderni Rossi and Classe Opera­ia, this hith­er­to unpub­lished essay is a long and con­tin­u­ous argu­ment, devel­oped on the basis of Tronti’s Marx­ol­o­gy and his­tor­i­cal analy­sis. While this leads us to a cer­tain digres­sion, we believe it is the indis­pens­able basis for redis­cov­er­ing the the­o­ry of class com­po­si­tion that Alquati’s prac­tice of inquiry sug­gest­ed, while also devel­op­ing this the­o­ry in a way that takes Panzieri’s warn­ing seri­ous­ly.

Though Tronti’s clas­si­cal work­erist inver­sion is wide­ly known and cit­ed, less is known about the process of the­o­ret­i­cal elab­o­ra­tion that led to it. Through­out Work­ers and Cap­i­tal the pri­ma­cy of work­ers’ strug­gle is described as a strate­gic rever­sal which attempts to iden­ti­fy and advance the polit­i­cal char­ac­ter of Marx’s the­o­ret­i­cal devel­op­ment, with the expe­ri­ence of 1848 and the polit­i­cal writ­ings pre­ced­ing the sci­en­tific eco­nom­ic analy­sis.84 In a sense, this rep­re­sent­ed a new object of inquiry. No longer was the goal, as it was for the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy or Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, to dis­cov­er uni­ver­sal pro­le­tar­i­an atti­tudes, or even the con­tent of social­ism, but to access a specif­i­cal­ly polit­i­cal log­ic which emerged from the work­ing-class view­point – a con­se­quence of the dif­fi­cult rela­tion between strat­e­gy and sci­ence rep­re­sent­ed by Marx’s the­o­ret­i­cal prac­tice.

Despite what seems to be an affir­ma­tion of some pur­port­ed work­ing-class iden­ti­ty, Tron­ti did not seek to defend, in the man­ner of the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy and Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, the dig­ni­ty of labor. On the con­trary, the guid­ing prin­ci­ple of the “refusal of work” meant return­ing to Marx’s own cri­tique of the ide­ol­o­gy of the work­ers’ move­ment: “When Marx refused the idea of labor as the source of wealth and took up a con­cept of labor as the mea­sure of val­ue, social­ist ide­ol­o­gy was beat­en for good, and work­ing-class sci­ence was born. It’s no acci­dent that this is still the choice” (222).85

Marx had tire­less­ly repeat­ed that “labor is pre­sup­posed by cap­i­tal and at the same time pre­sup­pos­es it in its turn” – in oth­er words, the own­er of cap­i­tal pre­sup­pos­es labor-pow­er, while labor-pow­er pre­sup­pos­es the con­di­tions of labor. On its own, Tron­ti wrote, “labor cre­ates noth­ing, nei­ther val­ue nor cap­i­tal, and con­se­quent­ly it can­not demand from any­one the resti­tu­tion of the full fruit of what ‘it has cre­at­ed’” (222). But since social­ist ide­ol­o­gy had extend­ed to new the­o­ries of labor and class, it would be nec­es­sary to “clear the field of every tech­no­log­i­cal illu­sion” which tried to “reduce the pro­duc­tive process to the labor process, to a rela­tion of the labor­er to the instru­ment as such of his labor, as though it were an eter­nal rela­tion of man with an evil gift of nature.” Just as treach­er­ous was “the trap of the process­es of reifi­ca­tion,” which start­ed with the “ide­o­log­i­cal lament” of machinery’s mor­ti­fi­ca­tion of the work­er and quick­ly moved to pro­pose “the mys­ti­cal cure for the class con­scious­ness of this work­er, as if it were the search for the lost soul of mod­ern man” (203).

Instead, rec­og­niz­ing that the “work­ing class is the point of his­tor­i­cal depar­ture for the birth and growth of cap­i­tal­ism,” Marx’s path was to “start from cap­i­tal to arrive at log­i­cal­ly under­stand­ing the work­ing class” (230). Con­se­quent­ly, it was nec­es­sary to affirm that the cap­i­tal­ist view­point could attain the sta­tus of sci­ence. In fact, cap­i­tal­ist sci­ence would be supe­ri­or to social­ist ide­olo­gies, which were still trapped in the view that “only the work­ing class, in par­tic­u­lar in the per­sona of its rep­re­sen­ta­tive offi­cials, is the repos­i­to­ry of real sci­ence (of real his­to­ry etc.), and that this is the sci­ence of every­thing, the gen­er­al social sci­ence also valid for cap­i­tal.” It would be bet­ter to rec­og­nize that “in the reor­ga­ni­za­tion of the pro­duc­tive process of a large fac­to­ry, there is at least as much sci­en­tific knowl­edge as in the Smithi­an dis­cov­ery of pro­duc­tive labor that is exchanged for cap­i­tal” (172). To want to know more about cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety from the work­ing-class view­point “than the cap­i­tal­ists them­selves” was a “pious illu­sion,” and “every form of work­ers’ man­age­ment of cap­i­tal proves to be nec­es­sar­i­ly imper­fect with rela­tion to a direct­ly cap­i­tal­ist man­age­ment.” The work­ers’ path was not a per­fect­ed man­age­ment, but destruc­tion of cap­i­tal­ism by rev­o­lu­tion. “So from the view­point of the cap­i­tal­ists,” Tron­ti argued, “it is com­plete­ly cor­rect to study the work­ing class; only they are capa­ble of study­ing it cor­rect­ly. But the ide­o­log­i­cal smog of indus­tri­al soci­ol­o­gy will not suc­ceed in can­celling the death sen­tence that it rep­re­sents for them” (230).

In this regard research from the work­ing-class view­point would be dis­tinct from cap­i­tal­ist soci­ol­o­gy, since its find­ings would be ori­ent­ed towards the orga­ni­za­tion of this destruc­tion. This indi­cates the ques­tion of “polit­i­cal com­po­si­tion”; as Tron­ti wrote, “the the­o­ret­i­cal research we have con­duct­ed on the con­cepts of labor, labor-pow­er, work­ing class, becomes noth­ing more than an exer­cise on the path to the prac­ti­cal dis­cov­ery of a con­quest of orga­ni­za­tion” (259). This speci­fic line of research, which emerges from work­ers’ inquiry and, in the his­to­ry of work­erism, some­times strays quite far from it, requires a sep­a­rate inves­ti­ga­tion. For the time being, we will dwell on the con­cepts of labor, labor-pow­er, and work­ing class, inso­far as they com­ple­ment and sys­tem­atize the find­ings of work­ers’ inquiry and the cat­e­go­ry of class com­po­si­tion.

Before even ask­ing what it means to say that the work­ing class dri­ves cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment, we have to ask what it means to say class, and indeed this is the absolute­ly cen­tral ques­tion of Tronti’s the­o­ret­i­cal elab­o­ra­tion. For Tron­ti the the­o­ry of class can­not be restrict­ed to the point of pro­duc­tion, and does not even nec­es­sar­i­ly begin there. Its expo­si­tion begins with Marx’s point in vol­ume 2 of Cap­i­tal: “The class rela­tion between cap­i­tal­ist and wage-labour­er is thus already present, already pre­sup­posed, the moment that the two con­front each oth­er in the act M-L (L-M from the side of the work­er).”86 Indeed, Tron­ti will affirm that “for Marx it is beyond doubt that the class-rela­tion already exists in-itself [an sich] in the act of cir­cu­la­tion. It is pre­cise­ly this which reveals, which brings out, the cap­i­tal­ist rela­tion dur­ing the pro­duc­tion-process” (149).87

His analy­sis pur­sues the lines of Marx which fol­low:

Mon­ey can be spent in this form only because labour-pow­er is found in a state of sep­a­ra­tion from its means of pro­duc­tion (includ­ing the means of sub­sis­tence as means of pro­duc­tion of labour-pow­er itself); and because this sep­a­ra­tion is abol­ished only through the sale of labour-pow­er to the own­er of the means of pro­duc­tion, a sale which sig­ni­fies that the buy­er is now in con­trol of the con­tin­u­ous flow of labour-pow­er, a flow which by no means has to stop when the amount of labor nec­es­sary to repro­duce the price of labour-pow­er has been per­formed. The cap­i­tal rela­tion aris­es only in the pro­duc­tion process because it exists implic­it­ly in the act of cir­cu­la­tion, in the basi­cal­ly dif­fer­ent eco­nom­ic con­di­tions in which buy­er and sell­er con­front one anoth­er, in their class rela­tion.88

What can it mean that a the­o­ret­i­cal tra­di­tion so known for its focus on the point of pro­duc­tion starts with a the­o­ry not only of val­ue, but of class, that is cen­tered on exchange? Hel­mut Reichelt has com­ment­ed on the choice faced for eco­nom­ic form-analy­sis between, on the one hand, labor as a “qua­si-onto­log­i­cal cat­e­go­ry” which presents “sub­stan­tialised abstract human labour as the sub­stance of val­ue”; and on the oth­er hand, an account of the specif­i­cal­ly cap­i­tal­ist social process­es which con­sti­tute the “valid­i­ty [Gel­tung]” of human activ­i­ty as abstract labor, and the nat­u­ral form of prod­ucts as val­ues – in oth­er words, the deter­mi­na­tion of what is count­ed as labor in exchange.89 For Reichelt this is the basis of Marx’s advanced the­o­ry of val­ue, and we can also observe Tron­ti fol­low­ing this thread: “Con­crete labor real­izes itself in the infinite vari­ety of its use val­ues; abstract labor real­izes itself in the equal­i­ty of com­modi­ties as gen­er­al equiv­a­lents” (124).

In an adven­tur­ous recon­quer­ing of Marx’s 1844 Man­u­scripts, again­st their human­ist appro­pri­a­tion, Tron­ti argued that Marx’s ear­ly writ­ings on alien­ation rep­re­sent­ed an ini­tial and incom­plete the­o­ry of abstract labor, aris­ing from the sep­a­ra­tion char­ac­ter­is­tic of pri­vate prop­er­ty.90 But this account would only be tru­ly devel­oped in Cap­i­tal. While for Cas­to­ri­adis Cap­i­tal amount­ed to lit­tle more than eco­nom­ic objec­tivism, it raised the fun­da­men­tal ques­tion of the com­men­su­ra­bil­i­ty assumed in exchange – which, as Reichelt points out, is cen­tral to the “dou­ble char­ac­ter” of “the wealth of bour­geois soci­ety”: “a mass of a mul­ti­tude of use-val­ues that as homoge­nous abstract quan­ti­ties can at the same time be aggre­gat­ed into a social pro­duct.“91 The val­ue rela­tion is meant to explain the form of “equal valid­i­ty” which allows dif­fer­ent prod­ucts to be ren­dered equiv­a­lent in exchange.92

A the­o­ry of class rela­tions speci­fic to cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety, then, can­not neglect to explain how the abil­i­ty to work can pos­si­bly be part of a sys­tem of exchange: how labor-pow­er can be exchanged for a wage, insert­ed into a sys­tem of cir­cu­la­tion in which com­modi­ties are ren­dered equiv­a­lent accord­ing to their val­ues. But this ques­tion can only be answered with­in the con­text of a his­tor­i­cal analy­sis which opens onto the def­i­n­i­tion of class. Abstract labor is con­sti­tut­ed in exchange, but the typ­i­cal exchange of cap­i­tal­ism is money/labor-power; so how does this con­sti­tu­tive class rela­tion arise, in which own­ers of mon­ey and own­ers of labor-pow­er con­front each oth­er on the mar­ket, and what is its rela­tion to the process of cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment?

For both Lefort and Cas­to­ri­adis, rely­ing on the Com­mu­nist Man­i­festo, capitalism’s pre­con­di­tion was the bour­geois rev­o­lu­tion. For Lefort, the bour­geoisie had to be under­stood as con­sti­tut­ing “a homo­ge­neous group with a fixed struc­ture” which had “com­mon inter­ests and hori­zons”; the pro­le­tari­at, on the oth­er hand, reduced to its atom­ized eco­nom­ic func­tions, would have to uni­fy itself through its strug­gle again­st the bour­geoisie.93 Cap­i­tal­ism rep­re­sent­ed the reshap­ing of soci­ety accord­ing to the bourgeoisie’s col­lec­tive inter­est.

For Tron­ti, start­ing from the forms of gen­er­al­ized exchange­abil­i­ty char­ac­ter­is­tic of cap­i­tal­ism, such an account of the bour­geoisie was sim­ply impos­si­ble. For a sys­tem in which the typ­i­cal, defin­ing exchange was money/labor-power, the start­ing premise had to be the con­sti­tu­tion of a class with noth­ing to sell but labor-pow­er, the free labor­er con­strained eco­nom­i­cal­ly but not legal­ly to sell labor-pow­er in exchange for a wage. This, for Tron­ti, was the con­sti­tu­tion of the pro­le­tari­at: “the prop­er­ly his­tor­i­cal pas­sage from labor to labor-pow­er, that is from labor as slav­ery and ser­vice to labor-pow­er as the sole com­mod­i­ty able to sub­mit wealth to val­ue, able to val­orize wealth and there­by pro­duce cap­i­tal” (139). But the pro­le­tari­at had to enter into exchange not with a class, but with indi­vid­u­al cap­i­tal­ists, whose only “col­lec­tive” inter­est was their shared dri­ve to com­pete with each oth­er:

The his­tor­i­cal point of depar­ture sees in cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety the work­ers on one side and the cap­i­tal­ist on the oth­er. Here again is one of the facts which impos­es itself with the vio­lence of its sim­plic­i­ty. His­tor­i­cal­ly we can speak of an indi­vid­u­al cap­i­tal­ist: this is the social­ly deter­mined fig­ure which pre­sides over the con­sti­tu­tion of cap­i­tal­ist rela­tions of pro­duc­tion. As such, at least in the clas­si­cal devel­op­ment of the sys­tem, this his­tor­i­cal fig­ure does not dis­ap­pear, it is not sup­pressed or extin­guished, but only orga­nizes itself col­lec­tive­ly, social­iz­ing itself so to speak in cap­i­tal, pre­cise­ly as the class rela­tion. On the oth­er hand we can­not speak of the iso­lat­ed work­er at any his­tor­i­cal moment. In its mate­ri­al, social­ly deter­mined fig­ure, the work­er is from his birth col­lec­tive­ly orga­nized. From the begin­ning the work­ers, as exchange val­ues of the cap­i­tal­ist, come forth in the plu­ral: the work­er in the sin­gu­lar does not exist (232-3).

In this regard the indi­vid­u­al cap­i­tal­ist per­sists, and con­tin­ues to engage in the mar­ket exchange which char­ac­ter­izes cap­i­tal­ism. But the cap­i­tal­ist class is “always some­thing else more or less than a social class. Some­thing less, since direct eco­nom­ic inter­est has not ceased and per­haps will not cease to present itself as divid­ed on the cap­i­tal­ist side. Some­thing more, because the polit­i­cal pow­er of cap­i­tal now extends its appa­ra­tus of con­trol, dom­i­na­tion, and repres­sion beyond the tra­di­tion­al forms tak­en by the State, to invest the whole struc­ture of the new soci­ety” (233).

Once labor-pow­er is exchanged for the wage, Tron­ti argues, intro­duc­ing a ter­mi­no­log­i­cal dis­tinc­tion into Marx’s cat­e­gories, the pro­le­tari­at is recom­posed as work­ing class: as labor-pow­er which is coop­er­a­tive, col­lec­tive with­in the labor-process. This ongo­ing process of social­iza­tion of labor is the first source of rel­a­tive sur­plus val­ue; it will lat­er require tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment for its fur­ther growth. Here Tron­ti devel­ops the point implic­it­ly sug­gest­ed by Panzieri; but while the lat­ter start­ed with the indi­vid­u­al work­er whose labor-pow­er was inte­grat­ed into the fac­to­ry plan, Tron­ti iden­ti­fies a process of class recom­po­si­tion.94 Between the pro­le­tari­at and the work­ing class Tron­ti sees “the same his­tor­i­cal suc­ces­sion and the same log­i­cal dif­fer­ence as that which we have already found between the sell­er of labor-pow­er and the pro­duc­er of sur­plus val­ue” (161).

The strug­gle for a nor­mal work­ing day, for Marx so fun­da­men­tal in the log­i­cal expo­si­tion of rel­a­tive sur­plus val­ue, man­i­fests the class strug­gle in terms which also framed the pro­le­tari­at: the strug­gle to reduce a het­ero­ge­neous mass to the com­mod­i­ty labor-pow­er, and the refusal to be reduced to it. This refusal is what dri­ves cap­i­tal to act in its col­lec­tive inter­est; in this strug­gle cap­i­tal con­sti­tutes itself polit­i­cal­ly as a class, which became an absolute imper­a­tive in the moment of 1848. Marx’s writ­ings on 1848 show “the encoun­ter and the super­im­po­si­tion of the abstract con­cept of labor with the con­crete real­i­ty of the work­er.” At this point, Marx could sup­ple­ment his ear­lier, intu­itive reflec­tions on abstract labor with dis­cov­ery of the pecu­liar char­ac­ter­is­tics of the labor-pow­er com­mod­i­ty: “the labor-pow­er com­mod­i­ty as work­ing class” (161).

It was not enough, how­ev­er, to con­clude that waged work­ers first con­sti­tut­ed them­selves as a class when they became sell­ers of labor-pow­er and were thus incor­po­rat­ed into cap­i­tal. It was imper­a­tive not to “fix the con­cept of the work­ing class in one unique and defin­i­tive form, with­out devel­op­ment, with­out his­to­ry.” Just as the “inter­nal his­to­ry of cap­i­tal” had to include “the speci­fic analy­sis of the var­ied deter­mi­na­tions assumed by cap­i­tal in the course of its devel­op­ment,” again­st the easy tran­shis­tor­i­cal assump­tions of a “his­tor­i­cal mate­ri­al­ist” tele­ol­o­gy, an “inter­nal his­to­ry of the work­ing class” would have to be “recon­struct the moments of its for­ma­tion, the changes in its com­po­si­tion, the devel­op­ment of its orga­ni­za­tion accord­ing to the var­ied deter­mi­na­tions suc­ces­sive­ly assumed by labor-pow­er as pro­duc­tive force of cap­i­tal, and accord­ing to the expe­ri­ences of dif­fer­ent strug­gles, recur­ring and always renewed, with which the mass of work­ers equip them­selves as the sole adver­sary of cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety” (149).

And indeed this account of the dynam­ic his­tor­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion and recon­sti­tu­tion of labor-pow­er was required by the social rela­tion of sur­plus val­ue, and the uni­ty of cir­cu­la­tion with the process of pro­duc­tion: “The his­to­ry of diverse mod­es in which pro­duc­tive labor is extract­ed from the work­er, that is, the his­to­ry of dif­fer­ent forms of pro­duc­tion of sur­plus-val­ue, is the sto­ry of cap­i­tal­ist soci­ety from the work­ing-class view­point” (170). This is pre­cise­ly because of the twofold char­ac­ter of labor, Marx’s most trea­sured dis­cov­ery, in which both aspects were deci­sive. While one could not derive the abstract char­ac­ter of labor from the lev­el of use-val­ue and con­crete labor – that is, this was not a mat­ter of abstrac­tion as a psy­cho­log­i­cal effect of fac­to­ry time-man­age­ment – the val­oriza­tion of val­ue could not take place with­out the use-val­ue of labor-pow­er:

labor, the uti­liza­tion of labor-pow­er, is work­ers’ labor, a con­crete deploy­ment, a con­cretiza­tion of abstract labor – abstract labor which finds itself already in its turn reduced to the rank of com­mod­i­ty, and which real­izes its val­ue in the wage. There­fore the step where abstract labor over­turns itself and takes the con­crete form of the work­er, is the process of con­sump­tion of labor-pow­er, the moment where it becomes in action what it was only in poten­tial, the step of the real­iza­tion of the use-val­ue of labor-pow­er, if we may. What was already present in the oper­a­tion sale/purchase as a class rela­tion pure and sim­ple, ele­men­tary and gen­er­al, has defin­i­tive­ly acquired from this point on its speci­fic, com­plex, and total char­ac­ter (166).

This com­plex and total char­ac­ter is implied by the coop­er­a­tive and col­lec­tive form of the work­ing class. Unless indi­vid­u­al labor-pow­ers are brought into asso­ci­a­tion, they can­not “make valid [far valere], on a social scale, the spe­cial char­ac­ter of the labor-pow­er com­mod­i­ty in gen­er­al, that is to say can­not make abstract labor con­crete, can­not real­ize the use-val­ue of labor-pow­er, whose actu­al con­sump­tion is the secret of the process of val­oriza­tion of val­ue, as a process of pro­duc­tion of sur­plus-val­ue and there­fore of cap­i­tal” (205).

With­in this process we can glimpse the the­o­ret­i­cal loca­tion of the con­cept of class com­po­si­tion: “The sale of labor-pow­er thus pro­vides the first ele­men­tary stage, the sim­plest, of a com­po­si­tion into a class of waged work­ers: it is for this rea­son that a social mass con­strained to sell its labor-pow­er remains the gen­er­al form of the work­ing class” (149). But this remains an ele­men­tary stage, since as Marx con­clud­ed in his chap­ter on the work­ing day, “our work­er emerges from the process of pro­duc­tion look­ing dif­fer­ent from when he entered it”; enter­ing as sell­er of labor pow­er (“one own­er again­st anoth­er own­er”), the work­er leaves know­ing that the pro­duc­tion process is a rela­tion of force, and that for pro­tec­tion “the work­ers have to put their heads togeth­er and, as a class, com­pel the pass­ing of a law, an all-pow­er­ful social bar­ri­er by which they can be pre­vent­ed from sell­ing them­selves and their fam­i­lies into slav­ery and death by vol­un­tary con­tract with cap­i­tal.”95 For Tron­ti this dif­fer­ence is “a polit­i­cal leap”: “It is the leap that the pas­sage through pro­duc­tion pro­vokes in what we can call the com­po­si­tion of the work­ing class or even the com­po­si­tion of the class of work­ers” (202).

We are now in a posi­tion to under­stand why the work­ing-class strug­gle, for Tron­ti, comes first in the his­to­ry of cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment. Cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment has to be under­stood as a process of exchange in which the val­oriza­tion of val­ue is dri­ven by the sale and pur­chase of labor-pow­er. It is only in the social­iza­tion of labor-pow­er with­in the labor process that pro­le­tar­i­ans take the asso­ci­at­ed form of work­ing class, in the real­iza­tion of the use-val­ue of their labor-pow­er by the indi­vid­u­al cap­i­tal­ist. And only the resis­tance of their reduc­tion to the labor-pow­er com­mod­i­ty can com­pel indi­vid­u­al cap­i­tal­ists, who com­pete on the mar­ket, to form a cohe­sive class:

The par­tic­u­lar­i­ty of labor-pow­er as a com­mod­i­ty faced with oth­er com­modi­ties coin­cides there­fore with the specif­i­cal­ly work­ing-class char­ac­ter that the pro­duc­tion process of cap­i­tal takes on; and, inside of this, with the con­cen­tra­tion of a work­ing-class ini­tia­tive in the class rela­tion, that leads to a leap in the devel­op­ment of the work­ing class and to the sub­se­quent birth of a class of cap­i­tal­ists (166).

With­in the con­text of this broad eco­nom­ic and his­tor­i­cal the­o­ry, we are in a posi­tion to close the lengthy digres­sion and return to work­ers’ inquiry. Workerism’s sci­en­tific dis­cov­ery was to push the prac­tice of inquiry away from the human­ist prob­lem­at­ic of expe­ri­ence towards a val­ue the­o­ry which was able to rein­ter­pret Marx’s cri­tique of polit­i­cal econ­o­my and put it to use. It implied a polit­i­cal prac­tice which affirmed shop floor pas­siv­i­ty and wage strug­gles as expres­sions of a nascent pow­er of refusal of work.

We can now under­stand that work­ers’ inquiry was an inves­ti­ga­tion into the com­po­si­tion of the work­ing class, as the his­tor­i­cal body which, sep­a­rat­ed from the means of sub­sis­tence and reduced to the sale of its labor-pow­er, had to be formed into a social­ized pro­duc­tive force with­in a process of con­stant expan­sion – the expand­ed repro­duc­tion of the class itself, and its recom­po­si­tion in ever more tech­no­log­i­cal­ly advanced labor process­es.

To close this geneal­o­gy we described a sig­nif­i­cant moment of rup­ture, the dis­cov­ery of a con­cept which opens new paths of sci­en­tific and polit­i­cal exper­i­men­ta­tion. But it was a the­o­ry which emerged from a speci­fic his­tor­i­cal moment. “We all have to be born some day, some­where,” Althusser remarked, “and begin think­ing and writ­ing in a given world.”96 Tron­ti began with the hege­mony of the fac­to­ry to show how the class antag­o­nism could be thought togeth­er with capitalism’s laws of motion, in a way that his pre­de­ces­sors had failed to do.97 Yet despite their the­o­ret­i­cal under­de­vel­op­ment, the John­son-Forest Ten­den­cy had under­stood that pro­le­tar­i­an life exists beyond the fac­to­ry, that it encom­pass­es a child­hood in the cot­ton fields, after­noons in the kitchen. And just as fem­i­nists in Italy would chal­lenge the hege­mony of the fac­to­ry as a mas­cu­line blindspot, Ital­ian work­erism would also have to respond to changes in cap­i­tal­ist devel­op­ment which they had not pre­dict­ed: glob­al eco­nom­ic cri­sis, the restruc­tur­ing of pro­duc­tion, and the decline of fac­to­ry hege­mony. Attempts to devel­op this the­o­ret­i­cal prob­lem­at­ic still have to respond to this his­tor­i­cal chal­lenge, and nav­i­gate around Panzieri’s warn­ing – the risk of laps­ing into a phi­los­o­phy of his­to­ry sup­port­ed by the ontol­o­giza­tion of labor.

Although the intro­duc­tion of class com­po­si­tion iden­ti­fied cap­i­tal­ism with indus­tri­al labor, and the social world cre­at­ed by the post­war boom, at the same time it pro­vid­ed a method which could today be used to trace the con­sti­tu­tion and trans­for­ma­tion of labor-pow­er in the con­text of uneven devel­op­ment and glob­al cri­sis.98 Tron­ti con­fess­es that his and his com­rades’ fix­a­tion on the indus­tri­al work­ing class now presents itself as an unre­solved prob­lem: “I have come to the con­vic­tion that the work­ing class was the last great his­tor­i­cal form of social aris­toc­ra­cy. It was a minor­i­ty in the mid­st of the peo­ple; its strug­gles changed cap­i­tal­ism but did not change the world, and the rea­son for this is pre­cise­ly what still needs to be under­stood.”99 We sug­gest that inquiry will be the first step in under­stand­ing.


  1. Karl Marx, “Enquête ouvrière” and “Work­ers’ Ques­tion­naire” in Marx-Engels Col­lect­ed Works vol. 24. (New York: Inter­na­tion­al Pub­lish­ers, 1880). The Eng­lish ver­sion at marxists.org has only 100 ques­tions; this is because Marx asks two sep­a­rate ques­tions about the decrease in wages dur­ing peri­ods of stag­na­tion, and their increase in peri­ods of pros­per­i­ty (ques­tions 73 and 74), and in this Eng­lish ver­sion the for­mer is omit­ted. 

  2. Karl Marx, Cap­i­tal, Vol­ume 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (New York: Pen­guin, 1976), 98. 

  3. Louis Althusser, Lenin and Phi­los­o­phy (New York: Month­ly Review Press, 2001), 65. 

  4. Marx to Dome­la Nieuwen­huis In The Hague,” avail­able online at marxists.org. 

  5. Kent Worces­ter, CLR James: A Polit­i­cal Biog­ra­phy (New York: State Uni­ver­si­ty of New York Press, 1996), 55-81; Paul Buh­le, CLR James: The Artist as Rev­o­lu­tion­ary (New York: Ver­so, 1988), 66-99. 

  6. For a brief, but excel­lent intro­duc­tion to the his­to­ry of the news­pa­per, see “Intro­duc­tion to Part 1” in Pages from a Black Radical’s Note­book: A James Bog­gs Read­er, ed. Stephen M. Ward (Detroit: Wayne State Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2011), 37-41. 

  7. “Gripes and Griev­ances,” Cor­re­spon­dence, vol. 2, no. 2 (Jan­u­ary 22, 1955), 4. 

  8. Grace Lee Bog­gs, “CLR. James: Orga­niz­ing in the USA, 1938-1953,” in CLR James: His Intel­lec­tu­al Lega­cies, ed. Sel­wyn Cud­joe and William Cain (Amher­st: Uni­ver­si­ty of Mass­a­chu­setts Press, 1995), 164. Paul Buh­le, on the oth­er hand, explict­ly claims that Grace Lee actu­al­ly wrote the text, in, Buh­le, CLR James, 90. 

  9. Ph. Guil­laume, “L’Ouvrier amer­i­can par Paul Romano,” Social­is­me ou Bar­barie no. 1 (Mars/Avril 1949), 78. 

  10. It is sig­nif­i­cant that Singer was not address­ing this to phil­an­thropists, bour­geois spe­cial­ists, or even sym­pa­thet­ic intel­lec­tu­als. This was for work­ers. “I am not writ­ing in order to gain the approval or sym­pa­thy of the­se intel­lec­tu­als for the work­ers’ actions. I want instead to illus­trate to the work­ers them­selves that some­times when their con­di­tions seem ever­last­ing and hope­less, they are in actu­al­i­ty reveal­ing by their every-day reac­tions and expres­sions that they are the road to a far-reach­ing change.” Paul Romano and Ria Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er (New York, 1947), 1.  

  11. Marx, Cap­i­tal vol. 1, 618; Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er, 52. 

  12. Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er, 47-48. 

  13. Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er, 57. 

  14. Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er

  15. CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, and Grace Lee Bog­gs, “World War II and Social Rev­o­lu­tion” in The Invad­ing Social­ist Soci­ety, avail­able online at marxists.org. 

  16. I.I. Rubin, “Abstract Labour and Val­ue in Marx’s Sys­tem,” Cap­i­tal & Class 2 (1978). See Rubin’s admirably con­cise def­i­n­i­tion: “Abstract labour is the des­ig­na­tion for that part of the total social labour which was equalised in the process of social divi­sion of labour through the equa­tion of the prod­ucts of labour on the mar­ket.” 

  17. Rubin, “Abstract Labour and Val­ue.” 

  18. “The rough draft of this pam­phlet was given to work­ers across the coun­try. Their reac­tion was as one. They were sur­prised and grat­i­fied to see in print the expe­ri­ences and thoughts which they have rarely put into words. Work­ers arrive home from the fac­to­ry too exhaust­ed to read more than the dai­ly comics. Yet most of the work­ers who read the pam­phlet stayed up well into the night to fin­ish the read­ing once they had start­ed.” Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er, 1. 

  19. In his intro­duc­tion to the French trans­la­tion of “The Amer­i­can Work­er,” Philippe Guil­laume called it “pro­le­tar­i­an doc­u­men­tary lit­er­a­ture.” For more on this, see Stephen Hast­ings-King, “On Claude Lefort’s ‘Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence,’” in this issue. 

  20. “A Worker’s Inquiry” was first pub­lished in the Unit­ed States by The New Inter­na­tion­al in Decem­ber 1938.  

  21. She wrote: “See, ‘A Work­ers’ Inquiry’ by Karl Marx in which one hun­dred and one ques­tions are asked of the work­ers’ them­selves, deal­ing with every­thing from lava­to­ries, soap, wine, strikes and unions to ‘the gen­er­al phys­i­cal, intel­lec­tu­al, and moral con­di­tions of life of the work­ing men and wom­en in your trade.’” Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er, 59. 

  22. Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er, 1. 

  23. Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er, 12. 

  24. Sel­ma James, “A Woman’s Place” in The Pow­er of Wom­en and the Sub­ver­sion of the Com­mu­ni­ty (Lon­don: Falling Wall Press, 1972), 58, 64. 

  25. It is only Mar­t­in Glaberman’s 1972 pref­ace to the pam­phlet which final­ly reveals that Phil Singer worked at Gen­er­al Motors fac­to­ry in New Jer­sey. 

  26. Quot­ed in Rachel Peter­son, “Cor­re­spon­dence: Jour­nal­ism, Anti­com­mu­nism, and Marx­ism in 1950s Detroit,” in Anti­com­mu­nism and the African Amer­i­can Free­dom Move­ment: “Anoth­er side of the Sto­ry,” ed. Rob­bie Lieber­man and Clarence Lang (New York: Pal­grave Macmil­lan, 2009), 146. As if to dra­mat­i­cal­ly con­firm this, Boggs’s own pseu­do­nym, Ria Stone, is often misiden­ti­fied as Raya Dunayevskaya. 

  27. Peter­son, “Cor­re­spon­dence,” 146. 

  28. Sel­ma James, Sex, Race, and Class – The Per­spec­tive of Win­ning: A Selec­tion of Writ­ings, 1952-2011 (Oak­land: PM Press, 2012), 13-14; Frank Rosen­garten, Urbane Rev­o­lu­tion­ary: CLR. James and the Strug­gle for a New Soci­ety (Mis­sis­sip­pi: Uni­ver­si­ty of Mis­sis­sip­pi Press, 2008), 89. 

  29. Charles Den­by [Si Owens], Indig­nant Heart: A Black Work­ers’ Jour­nal (Detroit: Wayne State Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1978), xi. This edi­tion was attrib­ut­ed to Charles Den­by, Owens’s more com­mon pseu­do­nym, and the one he used for most of his arti­cle in Cor­re­spon­dence. It is also sig­nif­i­cant that Owens still wrote under a pseu­do­nym in 1978, even though McCarthy­ism had clear­ly passed. 

  30. Den­by, Indig­nant Heart, xi. 

  31. Peter­son, “Cor­re­spon­dence,” 123. 

  32. Con­stance Webb, Not With­out Love: Mem­oirs (Lebanon, NH: Uni­ver­si­ty Press of New Eng­land, 2003), 266. 

  33. Romano and Stone, The Amer­i­can Work­er

  34. James, “A Woman’s Place,” 79. 

  35. For an excel­lent intro­duc­tion to the group in Eng­lish, see Marcel van der Lin­den, “Social­is­me ou Bar­barie: A French Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Group (1949-1965),” Left His­to­ry vol. 5, no. 1, 1997. Repub­lished at http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/lindsob.htm.” For a gen­er­al his­to­ry, see Philippe Got­traux, “Social­is­me ou Bar­barie”: Un engage­ment poli­tique et intel­lectuel dans la France de l’après-guerre (Paris: Edi­tions Pay­ot Lau­san­ne, 1997). 

  36. From Work­ers’ Auton­o­my to Social Auton­o­my: An inter­view with Daniel Blan­chard by Amador Fer­nán­dez-Savater,” avail­able online at libcom.org 

  37. Philippe Guil­laume, “L’Ouvrier Amer­i­cain par Paul Romano,” Social­is­me ou Bar­barie no. 1 (Mars/Avril 1949), 78; trans­lat­ed in this issue of View­point

  38. For more on this fas­ci­nat­ing fig­ure, see Stephen Hastings-King’s forth­com­ing book on Social­is­me ou Bar­barie. 

  39. “Un jour­nal ouvri­er aux Etats-unis,” Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, no. 13 (jan-mars 1954): 82. 

  40. Cor­nelius Cas­to­ri­adis, “CLR James and the Fate of Marx­ism,” in CLR James: His Intel­lec­tu­al Lega­cies, ed. Sel­wyn Cud­joe and William Cain (Amher­st: Uni­ver­si­ty of Mass­a­chu­setts Press, 1995), 287. 

  41. “Work­ers and Intel­lec­tu­als,” Cor­re­spon­dence, vol. 2, no. 3 (Feb­ru­ary 5, 1955): 4. 

  42. Grace Lee Bog­gs, Liv­ing For Change: An Auto­bi­og­ra­phy (Min­neapolis: Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta Press, 1998), 67. 

  43. An anony­mous ex-mem­ber of Cor­re­spon­dence quot­ed in Ivar Oxaal, Black Intel­lec­tu­als Come to Pow­er (Cam­bridge: Schenkman Books, 1968), 78. 

  44. For a detailed dis­cus­sion of Lefort’s take on this prob­lem, see Stephen Hast­ings-King, in this issue. 

  45. Claude Lefort, “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence,” trans­lat­ed in this issue. 

  46. Lefort, “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence.” 

  47. Lefort, “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence.” 

  48. For a fas­ci­nat­ing account of this paper by a mil­i­tant close­ly involved in its devel­op­ment, see Hen­ri Simon’s con­tri­bu­tion to this issue. 

  49. “Que voulons-nous?” in Tri­bune Ouvrière no. 1 (mai 1954), reprint­ed in Social­is­me ou Bar­barie nos. 15/16: 74. 

  50. Mothé was one of the few work­ers in the group, which led many to put him on a kind of pedestal. As Lefort has recalled “Mothé’s pro­pos­als, often very rich but some­times also con­fused, car­ried weight for many because he was sup­posed to ‘rep­re­sent’ Renault. Mothé was con­scious of the role he was led to play and while he took advan­tage of it, he was also exas­per­at­ed by it. The cli­mate would have been very dif­fer­ent if we had had more work­ers among us.” “An inter­view with Claude Lefort,” Telos 30 (Win­ter 1976-77): 178. This lack of work­ers in the group might have been a rea­son for the short­age of work­er nar­ra­tives that con­stant­ly plagued Social­is­me ou Bar­barie. This also marks a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between Cor­re­spon­dence and Social­is­me ou Bar­barie. The first was over­whelm­ing­ly work­ing-class. In 1954 it boast­ed a mem­ber­ship of 75 work­ers and only 5 self-described intel­lec­tu­als; see The Cor­re­spon­dence Book­let (Detroit: Cor­re­spon­dence, 1954), 1. In con­trast, Social­is­me ou Barbarie’s mem­ber­ship large­ly con­sist­ed of intel­lec­tu­als or stu­dents. 

  51. Daniel Mothé, “Le prob­lème d’un jour­nal ouvri­er,” Social­is­me ou Bar­barie no. 17 (juil­let-sep­tem­bre 1955), 30; trans­lat­ed in this issue of View­point

  52. Mothé often uses the term “rev­o­lu­tion­ary ide­ol­o­gy” instead of rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry. 

  53. Note how Mothé sub­sti­tutes “rev­o­lu­tion­ary orga­ni­za­tion” for “rev­o­lu­tion­ary mil­i­tants.” This seems to sug­gest that, accord­ing to this mod­el, the orga­ni­za­tion can be com­posed only by mil­i­tants. This might be a reflec­tion of the sit­u­a­tion Social­is­me ou Bar­barie found itself in: a group that hap­pened to be com­posed almost entire­ly of intel­lec­tu­als is turned into the­o­ret­i­cal type. 

  54. Mothé, “Le prob­lème d’un jour­nal ouvri­er,” 47. 

  55. The­se strin­gent qual­i­fi­ca­tions exac­er­bat­ed the major prob­lem fac­ing this project: the unwill­ing­ness of most work­ers to write. More on this below. 

  56. The edi­to­ri­al core of Tri­bune Ouvrière was already wracked by inter­nal ide­o­log­i­cal dis­putes. Although he sup­port­ed a closer rela­tion­ship between the two jour­nals, Mothé did not want to turn Tri­bune Ouvrière into a polit­i­cal jour­nal, in oth­er words, he opposed the idea that the jour­nal should com­mu­ni­cate overt­ly polit­i­cal ideas to the work­ers, and held that it should pri­mar­i­ly be a space where work­ers could dis­cuss their expe­ri­ences. Got­traux, “Social­is­me ou Bar­barie”, 67 

  57. For more on Hen­ri Simon’s stance on inquiry, the work­ers’ paper, and this broad­er expe­ri­ence, see his con­tri­bu­tion to this issue. 

  58. Got­traux, “Social­is­me ou Bar­barie”, 86. 

  59. For more on this con­junc­ture, see “Inter­view with Cas­to­ri­adis,” Telos 23 (Spring 1975), 135. 

  60. For more on this split, Marcel van der Lin­den, “Social­is­me ou Bar­barie: A French Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Group (1949-1965).” For a brief analy­sis from the per­spec­tive of a mil­i­tant who was involved, see Hen­ri Simon, “1958-1998: Com­mu­nism in France: Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, ICO and Echanges,” avail­able online at libcom.org 

  61. Daniel Blan­chard saw a per­fect illus­tra­tion of this in the rela­tion­ship between Mothé and Cas­to­ri­adis: “Where­as the Lenin­ist orga­ni­za­tions kept the man­u­al and intel­lec­tu­al work­ers strict­ly sep­a­rat­ed in speci­fic roles (the lat­ter edu­cat­ing the for­mer in any case), in SouB we devot­ed spe­cial efforts—which were often unsuccessful—to abol­ish this sep­a­ra­tion. For exam­ple, the rela­tion­ship between Daniel Mothé and Cas­to­ri­adis was an inter­est­ing exam­ple of the col­lab­o­ra­tion of a very intel­li­gent work­er, as Mothé was, and a the­o­reti­cian like Cas­to­ri­adis. The ideas that Cas­to­ri­adis elab­o­rat­ed helped Mothé to under­stand his own real­i­ty in the fac­to­ry. And Mothé was then able to ana­lyze his expe­ri­ence in a very con­crete way that in turn nour­ished the the­o­ret­i­cal labors of Cas­to­ri­adis; Blan­chard, “Auton­o­my.” Hen­ri Simon has also com­ment­ed on this pair­ing, but from a more crit­i­cal per­spec­tive: “In Social­is­me ou Bar­barie, there was a kind of har­mony [osmose], sym­bio­sis Mothé/Castoriadis. There was almost always placed side by side in Social­is­me ou Bar­barie a the­o­ret­i­cal arti­cle by Cas­to­ri­adis and a con­crete arti­cle by Mothé. Mothé saw the fac­to­ry through the the­o­ret­i­cal lens­es of Cas­to­ri­adis”; “Entre­tien d’Henri Simon avec l’Anti-mythes (1974),” avail­able online at raumgegenzement.blogsport.de. 

  62. Cor­nelius Cas­to­ri­adis, Polit­i­cal and Social Writ­ings, Vol­ume 2, 1955-1960: From the Work­ers’ Strug­gle Again­st Bureau­cra­cy to Rev­o­lu­tion in the Age of Mod­ern Cap­i­tal­ism (Min­neapolis: Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta Press, 1988), 213. Fur­ther ref­er­ences to this col­lec­tion are given in the text. 

  63. For a fas­ci­nat­ing auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal account of the phe­nom­e­non, see Stan Weir, “The Infor­mal Work Group” in Rank and File: Per­son­al His­to­ries by Work­ing-Class Orga­niz­ers, ed. Alice and Staughton Lynd, expand­ed edi­tion (Chicago: Hay­mar­ket Books, 2011). 

  64. Got­traux, “Social­is­me ou Bar­barie”, 120-121. 

  65. Indeed, it appears that Pou­voir Ouvri­er nev­er real­ly learned the lessons of Tri­bune Ouvrière; Cas­to­ri­adis found him­self writ­ing anoth­er arti­cle, this time in Pou­voir Ouvri­er, in which he tried, yet again, to the­o­rize why work­ers sim­ply were not writ­ing. See Cor­nelius Cas­to­ri­adis, “What Real­ly Mat­ters” in PSW 2, 223-5. 

  66. Claude Lefort, “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence.” 

  67. “Inter­view with Lefort,” 179. 

  68. “Inter­view with Lefort,” 183. 

  69. See “The Rela­tions of Pro­duc­tion in Rus­sia” in Polit­i­cal and Social Writ­ings, Vol­ume 1, 1946-1955: From the Cri­tique of Bureau­cra­cy to the Pos­i­tive Con­tent of Social­ism, trans. and ed. David Ames Cur­tis (Min­neapolis: Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta Press, 1988), and our com­men­tary in “Devi­a­tions, Part 1: The Cas­to­ri­adis-Pan­nekoek Exchange.” 

  70. Cesare Casari­no and Anto­nio Negri, In Praise of the Com­mon (Min­neapolis: Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta, 2008), 54. 

  71. Danilo Mon­taldi, Bisog­na sognare. Scrit­ti 1952-1975 (Milano: Col­i­brì, 1994). 

  72. Ser­gio Bolog­na and Patrick Cun­ing­hame, “For an Analy­sis of Autono­mia – An Inter­view with Ser­gio Bolog­na,” avail­able online at libcom.org 

  73. Mon­taldi him­self had believed that soci­ol­o­gy, as Steve Wright recounts, “could help in the devel­op­ment of rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry”; see Storm­ing Heav­en: Class Com­po­si­tion and Strug­gle in Ital­ian Auton­o­mist Marx­ism (Lon­don: Plu­to Press, 2002), 21-25. On the divi­sion with­in Quaderni Rossi, see Mar­ta Malo de Moli­na, “Com­mon Notions, part 1: work­ers-inquiry, co-research, con­scious­ness-rais­ing,” trans. Mari­bel Casas-Cortés and Sebas­tian Cobar­ru­bi­as of the Notas Rojas Col­lec­tive Chapel Hill, eicp (2006). Final­ly, for more on core­search or con­ricer­ca, and the influ­ence of both Mon­taldi and anoth­er of Alquati’s pre­cur­sors, Alessan­dro Piz­zorno, see Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi, and Gigi Rog­gero, “Con­ricer­ca as Polit­i­cal Action” in Utopi­an Ped­a­gogy: Rad­i­cal Exper­i­ments Again­st Neolib­er­al Glob­al­iza­tion, ed. Mark Coté, Richard J.F. Day, and Greig de Peuter (Toron­to: Uni­ver­si­ty of Toron­to Press, 2007). 

  74. See Wright, Storm­ing Heav­en, 46-58; the texts them­selves are col­lect­ed in Romano Alquati, Sul­la Fiat (Milano: Fel­trinel­li, 1975): “Relazione sulle ‘forze nuove.’ Con­veg­no del PSI sul­la FIAT, gen­naio 1961”; “Doc­u­men­ti sul­la lot­ta di classe alla FIAT”; “Tradizione e rin­no­va­men­to alla FIAT-Fer­ri­ere.” A par­tial trans­la­tion of the 1962 text, “Organ­ic Com­po­si­tion of Cap­i­tal and Labor-Pow­er at Olivet­ti,” is pre­sent­ed in this issue. For a very per­cep­tive analy­sis of Alquati’s Olivet­ti text, and the tra­jec­to­ry of inquiry in gen­er­al, see Wild­cat, “The Renascence of Operais­mo,” avail­able online at libcom.org 

  75. Raniero Panzieri, “The Cap­i­tal­ist Use of Machin­ery,” trans. Quintin Hoare, avail­able online at libcom.org. 

  76. Marx, Cap­i­tal, Vol­ume 1, 544. 

  77. Since the fur­ther devel­op­ment of the ortho­dox posi­tion was that col­lab­o­ra­tion between the unions, the state, and the employ­ers, rep­re­sent­ed the dis­place­ment of com­pe­ti­tion towards plan­ning, and there­fore a step towards social­ism, Panzieri also made the argu­ment that plan­ning rep­re­sent­ed the nec­es­sary social exten­sion of capital’s despo­tism in the fac­to­ry. “The basic fac­tor in this process is the con­tin­u­al growth of con­stant cap­i­tal with respect to vari­able cap­i­tal”; as machi­nes grew more numer­ous than work­ers, cap­i­tal had to exer­cise an “absolute con­trol,” impos­ing its ratio­nal­i­ty of pro­duc­tion upons work­ers, and through the growth of monop­o­lies extend­ing its plan “from the fac­to­ry to the mar­ket, to the exter­nal social sphere” (“Cap­i­tal­ist Use of Machin­ery.”) This the­sis would be the sub­ject of Panzieri’s last major essay, “Sur­plus Val­ue and Plan­ning,” in issue 4 of Quaderni Rossi (trans­lat­ed by Julian Bees and avail­able online at zerowork.org). In this sense, while Panzieri’s argu­ment rep­re­sent­ed a sophis­ti­cat­ed the­o­ret­i­cal advance and had a worth­while polit­i­cal func­tion, it also con­tained a cer­tain reifi­ca­tion of the fea­tures of post­war cap­i­tal­ism, and lost some of its clar­i­ty on the nature of cap­i­tal­ist exchange rela­tions. Inter­est­ing­ly, this essay was fol­lowed in Quaderni Rossi with Marx’s so-called “Frag­ment on Machi­nes” from the Grun­dris­se

  78. Panzieri, “Cap­i­tal­ist Use of Machin­ery.” 

  79. See Wild­cat, “Renascence of Operais­mo,” for some inter­est­ing com­ments on Piaz­za Statu­to in the con­text of work­ers’ inquiry. 

  80. Quot­ed in Robert Lum­ley, “Review Arti­cle: Work­ing Class Auton­o­my and the Cri­sis,” Cap­i­tal and Class 12 (Win­ter 1980): 129; also dis­cussed in Wright, Storm­ing Heav­en, 58-62. Lum­ley con­sid­ers Tronti’s inter­ven­tion to be “a the­o­ret­i­cal and polit­i­cal regres­sion”; as we will try to demon­strate below, we dis­agree with this assess­ment. 

  81. Mar­io Tron­ti, “Lenin in Eng­land,” avail­able online at libcom.org. 

  82. Raniero Panzieri, “Social­ist Uses of Work­ers’ Inquiry,” trans. Ari­an­na Bove, eicp (2006). 

  83. Tron­ti, Noi operais­ti, quot­ed in Adeli­no Zanini, “On the Philo­soph­i­cal Foun­da­tions of Ital­ian Work­erism,” His­tor­i­cal Mate­ri­al­ism 18 (2010): 60. 

  84. Mar­io Tron­ti, Operai e cap­i­tale (Tur­in: Ein­audi, 1966), 128, 179, 209-10, 220, 256. Trans­la­tions from this text are ours, with the invalu­able help of Evan Calder Williams, unless oth­er­wise not­ed. We also prof­itably con­sult­ed the French trans­la­tion by Yann Moulier-Boutang and Giuseppe Bez­za, avail­able online at multitudes.samizdat.net. Fur­ther ref­er­ences to the orig­i­nal Ital­ian are given in the text. 

  85. Here of course Tron­ti recalls Marx’s Cri­tique of the Gotha Pro­gram­me

  86. Karl Marx, Cap­i­tal, Vol­ume 2, trans. David Fern­bach (Lon­don: Pen­guin, 1978), 115; Tron­ti quotes this pas­sage in Operai e cap­i­tale, 144-5. 

  87. This is also quot­ed in Zanini, “Philo­soph­i­cal Foun­da­tions,” 50. Zanini’s is one of the few texts in Eng­lish which address­es Tronti’s eco­nom­ic analy­sis. 

  88. Marx, Cap­i­tal, Vol­ume 2, 115; sec­ond sen­tence quot­ed by Tron­ti, Operai e cap­i­tale, 148-9. 

  89. Hel­mut Reichelt, “Marx’s Cri­tique of Eco­nom­ic Cat­e­gories,” trans. Wern­er Strauss and ed. Jim Kin­caid, His­tor­i­cal Mate­ri­al­ism 15 (2007): 11. It is worth not­ing that work­erism was not always able to suc­cess­ful­ly nav­i­gate between the two; while Reichelt’s “qua­si-onto­log­i­cal cat­e­go­ry” refers to the con­cep­tion which under­stands abstract labor as expen­di­ture of phys­i­o­log­i­cal ener­gy, mea­sur­able in calo­ries, work­erism would at times be cap­ti­vat­ed by labor as the “liv­ing, form-giv­ing fire,” which is at times sug­gest­ed in Tronti’s assess­ment of the Grun­dris­se as “a more advanced book” than Cap­i­tal. (Tron­ti, Operai e cap­i­tale, 210; trans­lat­ed in Mur­phy 339). The Grun­dris­se played an ambigu­ous role in the his­to­ry of work­erism, pro­vid­ing new the­o­ret­i­cal energies while also obscur­ing the rup­tures in Marx’s eco­nom­ic thought. Future research will have to draw the­se dis­tinc­tions clear­ly, espe­cial­ly to move beyond the Grun­dris­se’s prob­lem­at­ic of “cap­i­tal in gen­er­al”; see Michael Hein­rich, “Cap­i­tal in Gen­er­al and the Struc­ture of Marx’s Cap­i­tal,” Cap­i­tal and Class 13:63 (1989). 

  90. This argu­ment is pre­sent­ed through­out the intro­duc­tion to the essay, pages 123-43, with atten­tion to a range of Marx’s oth­er ear­ly man­u­scripts. 

  91. Hel­mut Reichelt, “Social Real­i­ty as Appear­ance: Some Notes on Marx’s Con­cep­tion of Real­i­ty,” trans. Wern­er Bone­feld, Human Dig­ni­ty, eds. Wern­er Bone­feld and Kos­mas Psy­cho­pe­dis (Alder­shot: Ash­gate, 2005), 40. Reichelt ends this arti­cle (65) with com­ments on the cat­e­go­ry of class which, in con­trast to Tronti’s, do not man­age to incor­po­rate Marx’s close atten­tion to the his­tor­i­cal con­sti­tu­tion of the pro­le­tari­at, and its recom­po­si­tion in the labor process. 

  92. Reichelt, “Marx’s Cri­tique,” 22. 

  93. Lefort, “Pro­le­tar­i­an Expe­ri­ence”; see also the some­what dif­fer­ent argu­ment, which refers to waged labor and tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment alongside the bour­geois rev­o­lu­tion, in Cas­to­ri­adis, “Mod­ern Cap­i­tal­ism and Rev­o­lu­tion,” 259-60. 

  94. Com­pare to Raniero Panzieri, “Sur­plus Val­ue and Plan­ning”: “The rela­tion­ship between the work­ers, their coop­er­a­tion, appears only after the sale of their labour-pow­er, which involves the sim­ple rela­tion­ship of indi­vid­u­al work­ers to cap­i­tal.” It is worth not­ing that while Panzieri’s 1964 account was based on the dis­place­ment of com­pe­ti­tion by plan­ning, Tronti’s descrip­tion of “the plan of cap­i­tal” a year ear­lier in Quaderni Rossi had rep­re­sent­ed it as the high­est lev­el of devel­op­ment of the social­iza­tion of cap­i­tal still medi­at­ed by com­pe­ti­tion, in the indi­vid­u­al capitalist’s pur­suit of prof­its high­er than the aver­age: “Indi­vid­u­al enter­pris­es, or entire ‘priv­i­leged’ pro­duc­tive activ­i­ties, along with the propul­sive func­tion of the whole sys­tem, con­stant­ly tend to break from with­in the total social cap­i­tal in order to sub­se­quent­ly re-com­pose it at a high­er lev­el. The strug­gle among cap­i­tal­ists con­tin­ues, but now it func­tions direct­ly with­in the devel­op­ment of cap­i­tal.” Plan­ning rep­re­sent­ed the exten­sion of capital’s despo­tism to the state, not a new phase dis­plac­ing com­pet­i­tive cap­i­tal­ism: “The anar­chy of cap­i­tal­ist pro­duc­tion is not can­celled: it is sim­ply social­ly orga­nized.” See “Social Cap­i­tal,” avail­able online at libcom.org, and the orig­i­nal col­lect­ed in Operai e cap­i­tale, 60-85. 

  95. Marx, Cap­i­tal, Vol­ume 1, 415-6. 

  96. Louis Althusser, For Marx, trans. Ben Brew­ster (Lon­don: Ver­so, 1969), 74. 

  97. Intro­duced in “Fac­to­ry and Soci­ety” in the sec­ond issue of Quaderni Rossi (1962), col­lect­ed in Tron­ti, Operai e cap­i­tale, 39-59; see also Ser­gio Bolog­na, “The Fac­to­ry-Soci­ety Rela­tion­ship as an His­tor­i­cal Cat­e­go­ry,” avail­able online at libcom.org (trans­la­tion of “Rap­por­to soci­età-fab­bri­ca come cat­e­go­ria stor­i­ca,” Pri­mo Mag­gio 2, 1974). 

  98. For an account of the work­erist attempt to devel­op the the­o­ry of mon­ey and class com­po­si­tion in the con­text of the eco­nom­ic insta­bil­i­ty of the ear­ly 1970s, see Steve Wright, “Rev­o­lu­tion from Above? Mon­ey and Class-Com­po­si­tion in Ital­ian Operais­mo” in Karl Heinz-Roth and Marcel van der Lin­den, ed., Beyond Marx (Lei­den: Brill, forth­com­ing).  

  99. Mar­io Tron­ti, “Towards a Cri­tique of Polit­i­cal Democ­ra­cy,” trans. Alber­to Toscano, Cos­mos and His­to­ry, 5:1 (2009): 74. 

Authors of the article

is an editor of Viewpoint.

is a founding editor of Viewpoint and a doctoral candidate in History at the University of Pennsylvania.