We propose abandoning an interpretation based on the “nature” of movements and instead we propose thinking in terms of the dynamic of movements. What interests us is how a movement is capable to attack Capital and Work and the categories that divide the proletariat, and thus to carry another form of social relations into the struggle which move it towards communism. But what limits the movements is not only found outside of them. There are dynamics in movements that sustain divisions within the proletariat and perpetuate capitalist social relations inside of the struggle, ultimately bringing us back to the State. Therefore, thinking about movements in terms of dynamics acknowledges that there are several opposing forces within the struggle itself. Any revolutionary movement is a struggle within the struggle, a struggle for the destruction of capitalist social relations against all the dynamics that aim to contain and orient it towards reformism for the renewal of the existing order.
There are moments in movements when one of the poles gains dominance. When the momentum is on the side of extending the destruction of capitalist social relations, it is a moment of overcoming the limits. Overcoming in the sense that the movement transcends itself, starting from its initial conditions, but also transcends the people involved in it, who find themselves transformed by the struggle. We all have experienced this: we were not born revolutionaries. It has been the struggles that transformed us, through both direct experience and the reappropriation of the historical thread and the revolutionary theory developed over the course of it.
Movements are never purely revolutionary; they are always influenced by reformist and nationalist tendencies… Similarly, our movements are constantly confronted with ideologues of political revolution, whether they come from right or left. The latter sometimes advocate for insurrection, but only to bring about a change of regime that they would lead. Conversely, for us, insurrection is a moment that needs to lead to social revolution. While it is useful to produce content to counter these ideologies, this will never be enough. It is also, and above all, a question of attacking the material foundations which they are based on: politics, work, nations, the family, religions, etc. In movements of intense struggle, in uprisings, there are only two sides of the barricade: those who want to maintain the existing order and those who want to extend the force of the movement towards revolution. Fighting for the extension of the movement requires choosing the side of the struggling class, building a “we” through struggle, against all previously established divisions.
And what about the revolutionary subject?
We do not have a sociological conception of class; there is no “sociological” subject that is more revolutionary a priori than another, even if an uprising can obviously only come from the exploited class. Class constitutes itself as such in the movement. We do not conceive class as an identity to be defended in this society, but as the struggling class. Class emerges as a force through the struggle within the struggle; it is a trajectory that is won within the movement.
Participating in this affirmation as a class requires defending and developing both proletarian autonomy and hegemony. This means namely the implementation of revolutionary practices that are widely supported and constitute a force capable of defeating capitalist social relations. This is a moment when the balance of forces in the class struggle favors the extension of the movement. A moment in which the movement is increasingly able to reproduce itself and thus challenge the hegemony of capitalist social relations. It is a process in which the proletarians engaged in the struggle tend to act not only outside the structures dedicated to contain them, but also openly against them. This means that proletarian positions (of rupture, extension, etc.) and revolutionary practices tend to become widespread in the movement, against the hegemony of democratic and statist positions, which always pave the way to defeat. A proletarian insurrectionary situation is nothing but the climax of this process.
What about class consciousness?
We conceive class consciousness as a product of the struggle as opposed to the idealistic conception of consciousness. For idealists, consciousness is a state of being that the exploited must reach before they can make revolution. Hence the emphasis placed on education by anarchist pedagogues or anarcho-syndicalists, for example. Among Marxist-Leninists, the emphasis is on the catechism taught by the Party.
Consciousness is in reality the activity of the struggling class as it seeks to participate in unraveling the enigma of revolution. Consciousness is not a state of mind but a practice; it is not something that one knows, but something that one does. Concretely, it is all those moments in struggles where insurgents on roundabouts, at assemblies, at the heart of demonstrations or occupations, try to understand what forces are at play, where to go, what practices to initiate or take part in, what tactics to implement, what spaces for self-organization to create, and what to do there. This also includes all the practical activities of collective development, such as evaluations of struggles, the sharing of these reflections, their circulation, and discussing them within the class. The consciousness of this content – which goes from the extension and intensification of the struggle beyond the limits of the workplace, the neighborhood, the city, the country, the continent, up to the abolition of class society – is acquired in the struggle, including through the reappropriation of past struggles, a phenomenon that remains more marginal in times of social peace.
Revolutionary theory is nothing but participating in the global conversation about revolution, between contemporary struggles and those of the past (which we reflect on precisely in times of struggle). In other words, revolutionary theory is the struggle that thinks about itself through its own past and present experiences.
The revolution presents itself as an enigma to our movements, and the expansion of the movement’s strength raises strategic questions: Why attack this or that building? Why occupy a place, and for what? Where can we find food for everyone? How can we take care of the wounded? What should we do once reserves are depleted and looted commodities have been redistributed? How can we counter practices and discourses that seek to bring us back to the existing order, bring us back to work, etc.? The way in which a movement is capable of tackling these issues on its own is central to us. Indeed, against any dynamic of supervision and direction, the autonomy of our struggles is the only perspective that can lead to an effective revolution. But the autonomy of the struggle is not the goal of the movement; it is the means to avoid being condemned to defeat.
So, how are we going to win?