Talk:Autonomism/Archive 1

Copyedit and rewrite
I've given this a copyedit and restructure, and requested. I've also expanded it a little with some information from the Italian Wikipedia.

There are a couple of places where I've added Fact tags - not implying that what's been said is untrue, but they're fairly sweeping statements and citations would be useful. Tpth 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger/Templates
Autonomism is a more correct translation of the term "autonome". Furthermore, maybe this article should be merged with autonomist Marxism? Tazmaniacs 16:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge done. Tazmaniacs 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldnt some 'part of series' template be added? im also quite confused with the 'socialism' 'communism' 'marxism' templates, but this should certanly be part of some of them ...--Aryah 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not? The problem though with these templates is that they tend to "appropriate" themselves movement. For example, the "marxist" template is relevant, but so is the "anarchist" one. Although the movement originally grew up out of Italian autonomist marxism, even in Italy the autonomist movement shared strong characteristics (spontaneous, direct action or propaganda of the deed, emphasis on other people than the factory worker seen as the only real member of the proletariat according to classic marxism & communist parties, etc.). So, if we put one, it will invariably be biased. I don't really want to engage in this "war" between anarchism & marxism, I don't believe it's worth it. Maybe a solution would be to include "autonomism" in the relevant templateS without including the template here (or else we'll have to put both of them). Tazmaniacs 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your point! Previously, it was simply part of the 'communism' template, that didnt prejudicate I think much about its ideology in the anarchism vs marxism area.. Is that template being depreciated now? Simply, with marxism having its template, anarchism its, socialism its, what else is there left for communism, but, maybe, specific ideologies of particular countries? --Aryah 10:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Look it out... Tazmaniacs 13:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be under the anarchist template. At least the Danish autonome are seem close to social anarchism like in Anarchism and Social Anarchism. Carewolf 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The theoretical strand known as Autonomism should not be confused with what was known as the Autonome in Germany and Denmark (and Holland I believe). The Autonome grew out of squatter movements in the 80s in Germany, while Autonomism out of Operaismo. The fomer is Anarchist, the latter is not (though they do have similarities). In fact there is a lot of Leninist heritage in Italian Autonomism. In addition Autonomism is the label English/American writers such as Harry Cleaver, Nick Dyer-Whitford has used to describe it. Autonomism could as well be labeled Post-Operaismo. I would suggest that this (also known as post-Operaismo) be added right after Autonomism is mentioned in the entry. Khawaga (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be kind of getting mixed up with different definitions and different context in each definition that exist in different countries. English is an international language now, and perhaps some kind of a common system of definitions should be found if we want to understand each other. Autonomia! (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

autonomist Marxism?
There's a big problem here with the term 'autonomia' used to describe a historical movement. It didn't by any means grow out of autonomist marxism. It was a separate pre-existing movement which operaismo (the current which would later be called 'autonomist marxism' after this point) dissolved itself into. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.1.2 (talk • contribs).

I absolutely agree. The term Autonomia can not be restricted to Workerism and Autonomist Marxism. I believe that the viewpoint of the article is too politically biased, favouring only those specific trends of Autonomia. This article should be properly modified so that it includes all trends of Autonomia, in a balanced way. Autonomia! (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree that it needs modification, but disagree that it is politically biased in the sense that it is rather just confused. Autonomia is very different from Autonomism and they should have two separate entries. As it is now the current article is very confused on that point. Autonomism could be more correctly labeled as post-Operaismo/Workerism as autonomism is just what Harry Cleaver called various strands of post-Operaist thought. Autonomia from my understanding has its roots in radical squatters movement from the 80s particularly in Germany and the Netherlands (maybe also Denmark). Khawaga (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, perhaps the article (as it was until yesterday) was not all that politicaly biased but just too Italo-centric. With the experience I have from my own country I can see "Autonomism" only as a considerably generic term which includes related post-war left-wing theories and political trends which were (aggresively) non-leninist and connected with the "new movements". My idea, is to keep "Autonomism" a generic term (so that nobody gets insulted or anything) and then there could also be seperate articles on more specific trends. Autonomia! (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And just so we don't get mixed up on this, I agree that the Italian workerists carried a lot of leninist "load" but I think that their political stance was, one the whole, also quite anti-leninist. Am I mistaken on that? And something more on this. Whatever their "load" was, they did not, eventually, evolve into a typical leninist party. Isn't that true? On the contrary, the movements "evolution" in Italy was quite different (social centres etc) and, I think, quite consistent with what was happening in other European countries. Autonomia! (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except the Italian autonomia was a direct result of the praxis of workerism. Putting a theory/practice divide into the Italian movement prior to the late 60s is... well...  Also claiming Soc ou Bar as part of autonomism is anachronistic.  Soc ou Bar was working within a mixture of Socialist Humanism and critical post-trotskyism.  I agree that the lede needs to better reflect the movements, and that the movements do need to be better represented.  Autonomism seems to be, in English, an emphasis on the self-activity of the (broadly conceived) working class (or possibly multitude for some), particularly in the case of post-Socialist Humanist organised european theoretical and practical movements.  The lede doesn't reflect that, but it does reflect at least the distinctive, worker's autonomy centred, concern of the various things called Autonomism in English.Fifelfoo (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your considerations, about the Soc ou Bar claim, being anachronistic. However, there are reasons why their influence (and that of other groups, too) should be more emphasized in the article. That is because, their influence has been important to many autonomists in the movement (perhaps- for many- more important than that of Italian workerists). About Italy, I am far from having a strongly established oppinion about what was was happening over there. In any case, however, I did not propose a thorough theory/practice divide. I just wander why the "social centers" movement is not more emphasized and why groups like the "Indiani Metropolitani" are not at all refered in the article? "Autonomism seems to be, in English, an emphasis on the self-activity of the (broadly conceived) working class (or possibly multitude for some), particularly in the case of post-Socialist Humanist organised european theoretical and practical movements." (or definitely multitude for many) : that is the only part of this statement that I would have changed. That is exactly what Autonomism tends to mean in my language and (I believe) in many other languages, too. So why should that not be portrayed in the article? "The lede doesn't reflect that, but it does reflect at least the distinctive, worker's autonomy centred, concern of the various things called Autonomism in English." Yes, yes, but I would not agree on "at least". It seams that the phrase "on the contrary" would have suited me better if I ware to endorse that statement. Well, I think, I will make an attemt for a broader definition of Autonomism, in a new section of the discuss page. Your feedback (and everybody else's) would be much appreciated. Autonomia! (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have, regrettably, had to revert all of the recent changes to the article because the addition of a great deal of information, including the creation of section heading without any content, without benefit of any sources, is simply not acceptable. The lede, for instance, was doubled in size, making it unwieldy and unhelpful, and packed with information simply unnecessary to the opening of the article. Some of this information---the influence, for instance, of Castoriadis and Socialism ou Barbarie---is, I am sure, valuable. But, in the absence of sources, it is unacceptable. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you on the matter of sources and about the headings without content, matters on which there could have soon been an improvement. However, I strongly disagree with you on the matter of the lede wich had improved and is now quite misleading in it's reverted form. Autonomism DID NOT emerge in Italy in the 60s, as is misleadingly stated in the lede (at least it did not emerge only there). Autonomia! (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking,the whole article is misleading because it emphasizes, beyond balance,the importance of Italian workerism in autonomism. It should be changed. Autonomia! (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've revised the lede again and it is much shorter than the previous contribution. I wander if it suits better this time? Autonomia! (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Greek" section of the article is back. This time accompanied by bibliographical source. Autonomia! (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I'm new in the wikipedia and I am just now learning how things work around here. So I will not experiment again with the lede (at least not for a while). However, I do believe that there are certain issues here that nead to be discussed. For one, someone rejects a lede bacause it is "too long" and then another rejects another lede because it is "too vague", but all they do is revert it to it's former form which has been characterized as misleading (not only by me). So, coming back to the "core" of the issue, the thing in question is not only what the definition of "autonomism" could be, but also how could one reach a definition for "autonomism". Is "autonomism" solely a theoretical political trend that can be defined solely through the work of certain theoriticians and their intepreters? If one looks at it that way, then it could be argued that the sources of autonomism lie just as much in the work of Socialisme ou Barbarie (and perhaps other French groups as well) as in that of the Italian workerists. But "autonomism", besides a theoretical trend, can also be concieved as a living political trend within the movement. Living, to some extent, even to the day. As such, "autonomism" has been shaped and defined, not only by theoriticians but, also, through the struggle and efforts of thousands of people, in many countries. Therefore and on such grounds, I ask. Why should the thousands of people who identify themselves, in the past or even to the day, as "autonomists/autonomen/autonomoi etc", without identifying as workerists (and not -necessarilly- as anarchists, either), in Germany, in France, in the Netherlands, in Switzerland, in Denmark, in Greece and even in Italy itself, should not be taken into fair consideration when somebody attempts to define "autonomism"? I really would appreciate some commenting on these issues. Autonomia! (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added a link on the "Indiani Metropolitani" at the bottom of the page. I do, however, wander why there is no other reference to them in an article which makes such extensive referance to autonomism in Italy. Autonomia! (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I just added a short phrase in the lede and I think I can be covered, by that. It is the rest of the article that needs improving. There are a lot of things that should be added (as well as some expressions, slightly changed) in order to give the full picture. Autonomia! (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek anarcho-autonomists
The only books listed in the bibliography about Greece are in Greek. Does anyone know of good sources or books in English (Or that have been translated) that deal with the autonomist movement in Greece or at least the information presented in this article? It seems as though Greece is unfortunately left out of a lot of the big books on the autonomists. Please respond if you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.159.233 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look for references on Greek anarchism after 1974, cause -practically- anarchism and autonomism were (and to some extent are) political trends inside the same (anti-cultural and social) movement in post-junta Greece. I checked a number of Greek Autonomist websites, Terminal 119, Black Out, Blaumachen, Autonomia i Varvarotita. None of them has an English page... It's like we live in an isolated island over here... Autonomia! (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Interlapping" political trends, that is Autonomia! (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An attempt on a broader definition of Autonomism
Autonomists are:


 * Left wing and anti-establishment
 * Post-war era
 * Non-leninist, even though many carried a leninist load and backround
 * Antagonistic to both capitalist and "socialist" (state-capitalistic) establishments
 * Politically antagonistic to mainstream European left wing parties and trade unions (leninist or reformist)
 * They either endorsed a much broader definition of "working class" and "class struggle" than that of traditional marxists or a much broader definition for the "revolutionary subject" that the marxist "working class". However, these two distinct viewpoints did, more or less, refer to the same "subjects" (the ones that emerged through the post-war "new movements"). The first described these same "subjects" using marxist "class struggle" analysis, whereas the later used other analyses (non-marxist, post-marxist).
 * All autonomist viewpoints endorsed "non-hierarchical" (non-leninist) models of organisation in the movement and in their political groups.

Notes:


 * The fact that all autonomist tendencies refered to and endorsed more or less the same "subjects" and that they all endorsed "non-hierarchical" models of oraganisation, did bring all tendencies politically close, within the movement, even though they did diverge theoratically.


 * This political convergence was more important to defining autonomist identities that any theoretical divergence. At least it was so, in the years when the movements ware still strong.


 * The fact that, today, theoretical divergence might play a greater role in defining political identities does not entitle anybody to exclude theoretical adversaries from an identity with wich they have been historically connected


 * The definition of Autonomism should be as precise as it can possibly be, whilst being inclusive and not exclusive.

In my oppinion the article should change towards meeting such grounds. And I think the best way to do that is that these issues be discussed, here, first. Autonomia! (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent summary of what should be debated. I feel that we need to discuss the composition of Autonomism in two forms in the article:
 * Those movements and organisations which were, in their time, perceived as or claimed to be Autonomist; centrally, as identifying a "new" revolutionary subject by debating the composition of the mythical class
 * Those movements now claimed by Autonomists, anachronistically, as being central to what Autonomism is today, ie, Lettrism, bits of Socialist Humanism, Soc ou Bar, Johnson Forrest, etc.

While doing this its also important to point out the differences, for instance, with dissident Trotskyisms, with student movements in Germany or the US and their relationship to the new movements, and using this to point to the idea of criticising revolutionary subjects.

As far as multitude, Australian practice seems to be more workerist, and less multitudinous; but this might just be because "multitude" doesn't work in English.

I will debate this conception, "However, these two distinct viewpoints did, more or less, refer to the same "subjects" (the ones that emerged through the post-war "new movements")." In terms of describing them as subsets of the "new movements." Both the new militancy in the Italian factories and the praxis of workerism, was based in the 1950s. The new movements are certainly essensial to discuss, but, it isn't a universal. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, you might be right about that. The italian movement and workerism, too, are not exactly fields in which I hold a "specialized" oppinion. If you have better knowledge on that, I can respect it. However, wasn't the militancy in italian factories, very much promoted through the new generation of (young) workers in the 60s? Moreover, wasn't autonomism's spread in a number of european countries, in the 70s and the 80s very closely connected to the "new movements"? And what about the later appex of the movement in Italy (around 1976-78), which, strangely enough, is not refered in the article, wasn't that closely connected to the "new movements", too? Autonomia! (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if its worth noting the influences of Guatarri and Deleuze, notably on Negri and Hardt and the influence of Nomadic philosophy on ideas of Multitudes. I think theres an indisputable contribution these french theorists made, especially when interogating how identity politics have integrated with worker struggles and the like. 124.178.59.244 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No one (including their own mothers) ever understood what Deleuze and Guattari were talking about. How could they possibly have influenced anyone ? Giordaano (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What is Autonomism?
The aritlce intro should explain immediately, succintly and clearly what Autonomism is, beyond merely saying it is a 'socialist movement', how does it differ from other socialist movements? That's the first thing people will come here to find out and it is noticeably and disgracefully missing. - 188.141.61.64 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

While you are right in theory, in practice no one knows exactly what Autonomism is, so explaining "immediately, succintly and clearly" what it is, sounds like a titanic taskGiordaano (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

expanding the autonomism article
maybe you can add some more info from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomismo to the english autonomism article. for example, that autonomism is a hybrid ideology of marxism and anarchism, etc. i think this will help to better understand what autonomism is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.128.222.228 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I would recommend linking Autonomism to the broader movement/method called Open Marxism. This article mainly focuses on Italian theorists, but there are also general theoretical underpinnings to the movement.Michael 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikem1234 (talk • contribs)

"adherents of contemporary Marxian thought, including post-structuralists"
This bit (in the last sentence of the intro) seems misleading. I think it's wrong to consider post-structuralism to be a strand of Marxist thought, and I think most post-structuralists and Marxists would agree. Am I wrong? I'll reword the sentence slightly if no one objects. 98.208.56.86 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

criticism section
I don't see why not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

order of references to Ya Basta
The references to the Ya Basta group seem to be a bit jumbled. What feels like a first reference comes lower down than a passing reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.56.78 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OR
Just deleted a particularly sophomoric piece of text that may have been the basis of a tagging I removed. Will go over the article for similar or replace the tag. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Autonomism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703203233/http://www.generation-online.org:80/t/ppp.htm to http://www.generation-online.org/t/ppp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)