The following article is from the latest issue of Wind Chill
Factor (#9--July '93), an autonomist/anarchist magazine from
Chicago.  Contact WCF at:
  P.O.Box 81961
  Chicago, IL 60681  U$A
  (312) 455-0707
  email: thak@midway.uchicago.edu



DEFINING THE AUTONOMOUS STRUGGLE

This article was originally printed in the Spanish autonomous
magazine Sabotaje #7, then translated & reprinted in a past issue
of the now defunct Endless Struggle.  According to ES: "It can be
said the [W. European] autonomous movement was [is] an attempt to
break down political sterility & dogma (often passed off as
"clarity") & take what is practical & useful from revolutionary
currents, whether anarchist or marxist. Because of this, what is
often absent is discussion on what "autonomous" is...Some aspects
of the article may be "repulsive" to some, perhaps more
obstinate, anarchists. Against this, we also feel there is a
growing tendency in revolutionary currents in N. America that
will find affinity with this perspective. Particularily those of
us who see the need for a new projectuality beyond the mystical
confusion or worse--the "pure in thought & deed" tendencies, that
typify the radical movement in N. America.  We propose the
perspective presented in this article be discussed & expanded, &
if in the end we find it relevant & practical, applied."
     Many of us Wind Chill Factory workers consider ourselves
part of the N. American autonomous current for the reasons
covered herein (although this is by no means a complete
description of our theory).  This is signified by our "defining"
ourselves as "autonomists" as opposed to "anarchists", as the
anarchist label often proves shallow or even regressive,
considering the baggage it carries.  We would like to see this
theory of struggle discussed further and spread, so we encourage
responses and criticism.

     When the time comes to attempt & define "autonomy", we can
see the impossibility of finding such a definition, as autonomy
is the opposite of "orthodoxy".
     The first thing to define is that there does not exist a
true theory about the practice of revolution, nor marxism,
anarchism, ecologism, or other theories of today that are able to
encompass the social realities. So we find marxists-
leninists-stalinists or maoists, "anarchists of the night"
["Anarquistas trasnochadas", perhaps meaning hidden, secretive,
or "fly-by-night"] or mystics & other elements who try to fit
social reality into their theories, and as a result these
theories convert into false ideologies & false representations of
the social realities. This is when marxists (from stalinists to
euro-communists) & these anarchists (integrists or nights)
convert into accomplices of the exploitation, or at least into
in-offensive psuedo-revolutionaries.
     Because we are against this, defining the existence of a
"true revolutionary", we prefer to go on elaborating theory in
view of the daily practise; amongst theory & practise there is a
dialectical interrelation. The theory only advances as the
support of the struggle, the practise only advances when it is
backed by a theoretical construction. We would rather distance
ourselves from those who want revolution all at once & those who
spearhead activity or action by action.
     We are not anti-marxists & for sure we are not
anti-anarchists; for we take from both theories that which is
practical. The theories of 100 years ago cannot explain the total
social phenomenon (for example, the nuclear threat, the new
international division of labour, the ecological catostrophy),
but they support the instruments of analysis & the struggle which
we can't renounce. We can say that we are marxists & anarchists,
but of the lower case [Meaning they are not Marxists or
Anarchists, but rather are against the dogmatic interpretations
of claiming to be this or that political ideology], understanding
that we do not construct a global theory & that the global
deformities that marxism supposes (in its diverse school of
thought) & anarchism are an obstruction to our struggle.
     To give an example of this we can refer to the differences
in the concept of "revolution" that they have & that we have.
Traditionally for all marxists & also the simplifiled messianics
of anarchism, they have extended the revolution as an "act";
there has been previous work & preparations to this final act
which is this marvelous day when the proletariat will rise up to
break free of the chains & forever finish with exploitation.
After this a biblical paradise will be extended over the earth;
the quasi-religious interpretations of the revolution has been
revealed as a mystification & the results are obvious in the
revolutions that have "triumphed". Against this concept, we
understand the revolution as a proccss that begins the moment an
individual or a group understands that it is possible or
necessary for a revolution. It is a process that begins in the
daily lives of those that wage the struggle, a process where
there is no great day, no biblical insurrection, but rather a
collective (& individual also) struggle to develop & reach the
maximum capacity & happiness of both men & wimmin.
     As we have seen, to be autonomous is not only to be on the
margins or against the [political/marxist] parties, the
institutions, & organisations that limit the struggle of the
class (ie. unions), not only those, but we must confront the
false ideologies that convert into accomplices & legitimizers of
exploitation. It is not just to give ourselves an important name,
it's to realize a practical autonomy. That is to say, not to be
manipulated or mediated by any power or their representatives
(parliamentary, delegation, authoritarianism, machismo). It is
not to try to create another false ideology or assume a position
of the vanguard from which to dictate new paths, but rather to
analyse which direction the movement needs to go & assume
spontaneous practises of resistance of the people (for example
expropriation, thievery, sneaking onto buses without paying,
destruction of urban structures [mobiliario urbano, which we
translate into being riots, vandalism, clashes with police, etc. 
We would also recommend reading From Riot To Insurrection by
Alfredo Bonanno on this idea of participating in social struggles
& attempting to extend them to an insurrectional level], these
are expressions of dissatisfaction & a way of chastizing that the
people do in a spontaneous method including unconsciously, it is
a question of assuming these practices & giving them political
content & understanding), to assist the mechanisms of
self-organisation that the people develop in determined
situations to respond to aggressions (for example, the recent
mobilizations against the nuclear industry, outside of the
parties that went to the other side, including the margin of
ecologists), to denounce & expose the power & gestures of the
political parties, to mediate actions etc.
     There has been no area of autonomy with unrestricted border.
There has been no autonomy, where struggles have been near to it,
which has advanced toward establishing revolutionaries, which has
self-organised & set in motion a revolutionary method, where
individuals have self-transformed & at the same time confronted
the misery, which takes instead of asks, which acts instead of
waiting, there exists those individuals & those groups that
define in each moment that which is autonomy. In spite of this,
there exists an axis of minimum definition: we will briefly list
& explain:

SELF-MANAGEMENT: on all levels & not reduced to the economic
level. We will fortify ourselves in the philosophies of history,
beginning with the self-governing of our lives, developing to the
maximum creative capacity of our lives. We need to do this
realizing the limits of our work, with relation to capitalism,
sexual norms, & the "castration" of "education"...

ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM: also extended to the global mode:
conquering hierarchy, conquering sexual divisions imposed by
patriarchy, & establishing mechanisms of direct democracy that
permit a collective & equal decision making process.

DIRECT ACTION: as an instrument of struggle in accordance with
the above mentioned.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE END RESULT & THE MEANS: in accordance
with our conceptions of revolution as a process, the methods of
struggle are in fact the same struggle itself; the ends of the
struggle are not defined, nor the priority; with the groups &
individuals that confront the state on a daily basis are the ones
who choose the methods of struggle; & their objectives are noted
in their dialectic relation between the practise & the theory.
The opposition of violent struggles/non-violent struggles is
false; the opposition is found amongst struggles manipulated by
the powers & their represented ideologies, & by so many
non-liberators (which can be equally violent or non-violent), &
amongst autonomous struggles & by so many liberators.

ANTl-CAPITALISM: the surmounting of the logic of productivity &
economy that is leading the world into destruction.  This
supposes to begin to renounce the mythos of work & morals, the
myth of money & the myth of consumerism of shit (well, there is
no other thinq being consumed under capitalism), towards reaching
the maximum realization of happiness.

While this list may suffice as a minimum definition, it is by no
means full or complete.  Just off the top of my head are theories
of anti-racism/colonialism, a critique of the spectacle, etc.  We
hope to see this discussion and the necessary criticism/self-
criticism continued in future issues...
 


