Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Spain and Communization Theory: Past and

[] As far as I remember, the word itself came up around
1972-74 among a number of people who were critical of but inspired
by the S.I., the German and Italian Left, etc. Maybe the first person
who used the word was Pierre Guillaume, the bookseller (and ex
Socialisme ou Barbarie member) of The Old Mole (that was the
bookshops name). He certainly was the first one to give the concept
its importance. Maybe the word was coined by Dominique Blanc, who
was then to be the main person in the group La Guerre Sociale, who
wrote a very stimulating and pioneering essay, A World without
Money The sad thing is, this very forceful notion was not really
developed by the small milieu it came from. Maybe a sign of the
weakness on the part of the communist movement (as a social
movement, not just people like you and me).
[] Anyway, Ive only ever met hostility from the heirs of the
German-Dutch left, ICO and recently changes et Mouvement I
suppose their aggressiveness comes from deep incomprehension. To
them, borrowing from both Bordiga and Pannekoek must appear like
crossdressing appeared to my mother.
Correspondence between parts of the Riff-Raff-collective and Gilles
Dauv (aka Jean Barrot) Riff-Raff #7.1 (March 2004)

Preliminaries: on Communization and the Ultra-left

An article dealing with the birth process of communisation theory from its
origins in the critique of the Ultra-left and its reception in Spain might well
begin with a reference to one or two Spanish counterparts of the great
revolutionary theorists the Luxemburgs, Gorters, Pannekoeks and Bordigas
that came to the fore during the worldwide cycle of revolutionary workers
struggles that began in 1917. Unfortunately, however, not a single name comes
to mind. This in itself is a most striking fact, particularly when one considers
that in Spain the hallowed year 1917 was witness to a revolutionary general
strike and that according to Guy Debords Society of the Spectacle, the 1936
revolution supposedly set up the most advanced model of proletarian power
ever realized. If Debords assertion is correct, one can only wonder at the lack
of theoretical impact this revolutionary upheaval had in comparison to its
Russian, German, and Italian predecessors. The vast amounts of literature on
the Spanish revolution notwithstanding the finest instances of which,
significantly, have almost invariably been penned by non-Spaniards, this
absence would seem to bear out the old Bordigist contention according to which
the Spanish events of 1936 did little more than provide negative confirmation of
the theoretical lessons learned many years before by the Communist Left in
Germany and Italy.
Rather than ascribing this theoretical void to some endemic Iberian
intellectual poverty, this scarcity of up-to-scratch theorising must be put down

at least in part to the fact that all the aforementioned European

revolutionaries were forced to reckon with the challenges that the transitional
period between the formal and the real subsumption of capital 2 posed to the
international workers movement, whereas in Spain the decisive stage of this
transition wasnt really reached until the Francoist stabilization plan of 1958 3.
(This would also explain the absence of outstanding Marxist theorists in France
prior to the 1950s.)
Undoubtedly, though, the Spanish revolution did provide an enormous
boost for the ideological credibility of the fascism/antifascism opposition, which
was the ideological backdrop of the Second World War that paved the way for
the global transition between formal and real domination under US hegemony.
In the process, the brief Spanish summer of anarchy, with its touting of
workers democracy and self-management, also supplied the non-Stalinist
Left with the lasting image of an anti-authoritarian solution to the riddle of
the abolition of capitalism. In this respect, the epic mythologizing of the
revolutionary side of the Spanish Civil War might be considered as one of the
major instances of the uncritical celebration of the purportedly undefeated
side that accompanied the working class struggles of the 1917-1968 period.
Far from finally ushering in this undefeated side (workers councils,
direct democracy, the struggle against the labour bureaucracy) as the
cornerstone of a new wave of revolutionary activity, May 68 and the years
immediately following it turned out to be the swan song of the workers
movement and its main linchpin, the affirmation of working class power.
Indeed, one of the main lessons of May 68 was that henceforth communist
revolution would have less to do with workers power than with the joint
subversion and transformation of both the sphere of production and that of
everyday life. By the same token, this implied going beyond the issues of
organisation, management and decision-making as the be all and end all of
revolutionary activity. Slowly but surely, as the global wave of struggles of 19681973 unfolded, the entire notion of the abolition of capitalism began to undergo
radical mutations. The recognition that opposing the Leninist vanguard party
model with ultra-democratic anti-authoritarian organisational forms didnt get
to the root of the matter was merely a first settling of accounts, immediately
followed by the rejection of the need for a transitional period after a working
class takeover. This was replaced by the notion of communization, i.e., the
immediate adoption of communist measures for the simultaneous purpose of
abolishing the proletariat and undermining the material basis of the counterrevolution.
As had been the case at other turning points in the history of the
communist movement, the theoretical innovations that came to the fore in the
early 1970s were not the mere fantasies of a handful of would-be universal
reformers, but conclusions drawn from new characteristics and forms evidenced
by the class struggle during those years such as sabotage, absenteeism and
other forms of refusal of work and the appearance of a host of new nonworkplace based struggles in the sphere of social reproduction, including ghetto

For a thorough account of the global history of this transition, see B. Astarian, Elments sur la
priodisation du MPC: histoire du capital, histoire des crises, histoire du communisme , Hic
Salta, 1998,
For more on this transition in the Spanish context, see Loren Goldners Ubu Saved From
Drowning: Workers Insurgency and Statist Containment in Portugal and Spain, 1974-1977,

riots, the womens movement, prison revolts, ecology or the anti-nuclear

movement. All of these movements could be seen as rejections of the centrality
of labour and of workers identity as the basis of revolution and came into being
precisely at the moment when the global devalorization of capital was putting an
end to the worldwide expansion of the productive working class.
As a result, it began to transpire that the class antagonism was only one of
the forms in which capital structures unequal access to wage labour and the
multiple antagonisms it gives rise to, others factors being race, gender, sexuality
or nationality. Indeed, the crisis of workers identity also signalled the end of the
spurious notion that the defining feature of proletarians and the only thing they
truly had in common i.e., their mutual separation could be overcome by any
form of political action. The proletariat could only put an end to this separation,
it was now argued, by actively destroying the foundations of its existence as a
class. Another corollary of the rejection of workers identity was that the notions
of class consciousness and revolutionary organization were also called into
question and came under attack as mere tools with which political sects traded
on what some now denounced as their general equivalent and bargaining chip:
the proletariat (as subject and as representation).
Although in no way limited to the most advanced capitalist nations, the
mounting revolt against work undoubtedly found its clearest theoretical
expression in countries like the USA, France, Italy and the UK. Groundbreaking
texts, such as Ngations Lip et la contre-rvolution autogestionnaire [1973]
(published in Detroit in 1975 by Black & Red as Lip and the self-managed
counter-revolution, 1975), Les Amis de Quatre Milllions de Jeunes
Travailleurss Lordstown 72 ou les dboires de la Gnral Motors [1973], or
changes et mouvements Refus du travail, faits et discussions [1978] (The
Refusal of Work, 1979), none of which, significantly, were ever translated into
Spanish detailed the refusal of work, as well as the shock waves of denial
and incomprehension it sent through the ranks of the established councilist
There is undoubtedly a great deal to be learned from the study of the crises
that ravaged the French Ultra-left milieu during the early 1970s, which in many
respects anticipated later and much more publicized developments in Italy. The
fact that so little is known or has been written about this period of upheaval
certainly has nothing to do with its lack of interest, but rather with the interest
of the present day heirs of this milieu to avoid evoking an annoying and
awkward moment of their history. Though the crisis of the Ultra-left made quite
a few of these groupings disappear forever, others regrouped and evolved
toward neo-orthodox outfits which combined the tenets of Bordigism with the
legacy of Dutch-German Councilism while simultaneously taking great pains to
root out the corrosive influence of the situationist critique of militantism and
everyday life from their ranks, hastily written off as intellectual expressions of a
rebellious petty bourgeoisie4.

The older generation of the Ultra-left, more aware of the potential dangers that the early
communisers critique represented for the existence and cohesion of their milieu, generally
restricted itself to waging a war of silence and moderate polemics against them. However, when
former members of the Vielle Taupe bookshop Pierre Guillaume and Dominique Blanc became
involved in the Faurisson affair and negationism in 1978, large sections of the Ultra-left (and
the bourgeois press) pounced on the occasion to avenge themselves for past affronts and tar the
entire milieu with the same brush.

The initial stirrings of what might be called early communization theory

began as a critique of the limitations of councilism and workers selforganization within the French workerist network ICO (Informations et
Correspondance Ouvrires), which had split from Socialisme ou Barbarie in
19585. ICO was a loose grouping of factory militants of various political
persuasions anarchists, Marxists and non-aligned militants linked together
by strong feelings about class struggle and a general hostility to the development
of any coherent theory, which they considered to lead inevitably to domination
by intellectual elites, i.e., bureaucracies.
By all accounts, ICO played a rather sad role during May 68: in accordance
with its basic principles, it limited itself to holding regular meetings at the
Censier Centre, where it kept to its customary practice of circulating
information without engaging in any sort of collective action or involving itself
in the coordination of the committees under the pretext that these only
represented a minority of workers. In effect, and as a result of its striving to
maintain its purity as a non-vanguardist workers group, ICO ended up
condemning precisely what constituted the most subversive aspect of May 68:
the establishment of contacts among radical worker minorities outside the
workplace as well as links with revolutionaries who were not workers
(interestingly enough, the Stalinist trade union CGT used this very same
workerist argument to denounce all attempts by the committees to approach
the striking workers of several enterprises).
Prior to that, ICO had been critiqued on several occasions, fraternally at
first, and subsequently with increasing severity, by the Situationist
International. In September 1969, Ren Riesel summed things up as follows in
the final issue of Internationale Situationniste:
Some present-day organizations cunningly pretend not to exist. This enables
them to avoid bothering with the slightest clarification of the bases on which they
assemble any assortment of people (while magically labelling them all workers),
to give no account at all to their semimembers regarding the informal leadership
that holds sway, to spout nonsense and above all to indiscriminately condemn any
theoretical expression and any other form of organization as evil and harmful
beforehand. [] If we were to idealistically rely on the council concept or, even
more laughably, on the practical inactivity of ICO, to exclude all ideology in the
real councils, we should expect the worst, as we have seen that historical experience
justifies no such optimism in this regard. (Preliminaries on Councils and
Councilist Organization)

Here is a brief extract from Henri Simons somewhat cryptic account of ICOs post-1968 history
and demise: [] After 1968, the character of ICO had completely changed. The group had
become more of a political organization with perhaps several hundred loose participants. The
workers were a minority and voted with their feet as the discussions were moving very far from
their struggles. Several tendencies were fighting to lead ICO toward a specific orientation and
after four years it burst into several pieces. (1958-1998: Communism in France: Socialisme ou
Barbarie, ICO and changes

Throughout the ensuing period ICO was continuously subjected to

relentless critiques, more often than not by individuals and groups who had
joined the network after May 68 and subsequently left it 6. The most well known
and incisive of these critiques was Jean Barrots (Gilles Dauv) 1969 text
published in Bilbao by Zero-zyx in 1976 under the title Leninismo y
ultraizquierda Sur lidologie ultra-gauche (Lninisme et ultra-gauche) .
Three years later, in an article published in the first issue of the review Le
Mouvement Communiste (April 1972)7, Dauv summarised the procedures
employed during the 1969 national reunion of ICO by the groups informal
leadership to avoid any debate whatsoever of the aforementioned text:
Despite being explicitly directed against ICO, this text was at no time
criticised by the members of ICO in the course of the debates. They left it to a group
of anarchists (we use this term for want of a better one, and without the
pejorative nuance customary among Marxists) to attack us in the most
indescribably confused manner. If Leninism hadnt existed, it would have had to
have been invented then, as it constituted the only obvious element uniting all
those assembled there. The official proceedings of the reunion subsequently
reproduced the text, summing up the debate as if it had actually taken place. This
way of dodging critique is all the easier given that ICO pretends not to be a group
with its own theory. Nothing could be worse than the informal bureaucracy
secreted by institutionalised democracy.
[] Several examples prove that ICO as a mailbox is a myth; the same
applies to ICO as a space for debate. In ICO one may debate anything but that
which would call into question the very nature of the group.

Subsequently, perhaps to avoid any possibility of being lumped among the

legions of modernist intellectuals then indulging narcissistically in the selfpromoting revolutionising of revolutionary theory for its own sake, Dauv
chose not to stress the significance of the theoretical innovations surrounding
these splits. Perhaps, as Dauv himself suggests, this should be interpreted this
as a sign of weakness on the part of the communist movement, or put down to
what amounts to the same thing, i.e., that the period itself revolved much more
around the death of the old than the birth of the new 8. A large part of Dauvs
activity during those years, for example, revolved around settling accounts with
the past and simultaneously circulating the heritage of the Italian and DutchGerman Communist Lefts largely made available through the efforts of
Jacques Camattes neo-Bordigist publication, Invariance in order to
contribute to a critique of the practical limitations encountered by
revolutionaries immediately after May 68. Incidentally, this may also explain

Francesco Santinis Apocalypse and Survival explains how some of these critiques found their
way to Italy: In the first issue of Ludd, the minutes of the meeting held in Brussels by
Informations et Correspondance Ouvrires in July 1969, at which almost all existing councilist
currents were represented, were published. It featured the texts of the immediatists, who
focused their practice on forms of the immediate realization of the critique of everyday life
(illegalism, immediate rejection of work, hedonism) and who had engaged in a harsh critique of
the other groups at Brussels. (
Ce que nous ne sommes pas, ce que nous ne voulons pas, et ou nous ne voulons devenir
One might contrast Dauvs lack of triumphalism during those years to many orthodox
situationist accounts of the struggles of the 1970s, as well as to the vague celebratory tone
regarding the brave new world of autonomy found in an otherwise symptomatic and
sometimes stimulating text, Henri Simons The New Movement (1974): If one looks at the
world today, one can see that revolution, in the Jacobin sense, is becoming progressively
outdated, but that the revolutionary process itself is becoming more and more powerful.

the fairly wide circulation (and translation) of Dauvs writings among groups
and individuals whose backgrounds, mindsets and activities are much more in
line with the outlook of the old Ultra-left (or of anarchism) than with that of
latter-day proponents of communisation theory like Thorie Communiste and
Endnotes. In any case, at the time and for many years afterward, there seems to
have been practically no awareness of the depth of the break that had taken
In the meantime, ICO came to the end of its tether in 1973 and changes
et Mouvement was born in 1974-75 out of its surviving fragments and some of
its international contacts. However, beyond the general emphasis on
autonomy as the defining characteristic that distinguished the New
Movement from the Old Movement a good way of hedging ones bets at a
time when new social movements were constantly challenging the centrality of
workers identity there doesnt seem to have been a very large degree of
theoretical renewal involved in the transition from ICO to changes:
changes is not a group in the traditional political sense of this word in the
leftist milieu. The most accurate way to define it is to call it a network. []
The contacts between these groups and individuals had existed before, and
mostly for a long time. Quite a lot of other individuals scattered all over the
Western world were connected to this core, the link between them being not only
the groups publications or exchange of correspondence but also international
meetings. One of these meetings had furnished the material for a pamphlet more or
less giving the common position of the mentioned militants. This pamphlet,
entitled The New Movement, was the ideological link between them. []
Those participating in this project decided not to bother with the clarification
of standpoints held in common (which usually accompanies the birth of a new
group) but to accept the existing tacit agreement. [].
We have few fixed preconceived conceptions limiting our gathering of
information or of analyses concerning the meaning of class conflicts today or the
forms these conflicts will take in the future. It is not what workers think, even about
their own struggles, that matters but what they actually do and the real meaning of
their activity. We think we have to learn from these struggles and to consider their
links with the general movement of struggles and with the situation of capitalism as
a whole. So we despise using empty bluff, empty rhetoric or self-satisfying
proclamations or offering advice or lessons to the workers. We see this attitude
as an elitist conception seeking to use and dominate workers struggles. (What is
changes et Mouvement as a Group?)

Nonetheless, the crises of ICO and the subsequent founding of changes

are worthy of attention due to the fact that both groupings were deeply affected
by the crises involved in the origins of communisation theory, and because they
were also the forerunners of the organizational approach preferred by the
majority of contemporary militant-activists: autonomy, a term whose meaning
has evolved considerably over time. Initially, it indicated to the autonomy of
workers from political parties and unions; it then went on to designate the
autonomy of different fractions of the proletariat, such as women and ethnic
minorities, from the working class as a whole, and has finally ended up
referring to horizontally organised militant groupings which pursue
autonomous projects with little or no relation to the non-activist public and
which call upon their fellow activists to democratically coordinate themselves in
order to make separate spheres of activity (and activism) converge.
In a recent article, Dauv makes some pertinent observations on the
contemporary relevance of this approach, when party-building has been
replaced by consciousness-building, and when the majority of activists have

ceased to concentrate their efforts on recruiting and leading others but

nonetheless continue to believe that, as depositaries of consciousness, they have
a special mission to inform:
[] Informations & Correspondance Ouvrires (1961-73), and now
changes & Mouvement claimed to have no theory except the theory that only the
proletarians could determine their own methods and aims. Likewise, thousands of
infokiosks and indymedia collectives profess to have no specific doctrine (Marxist,
anarchist, ecologist, feminist, whatever), and say their sole purpose is to serve as a
meeting place and communication centre meant to promote social struggles, with
the difference that the historical subject is no longer the working class, but the
people (the famous 99%). They act as if ICOs choice of non-existence (IS, # 11)
had been inverted into the choice of 24/7 on-line presence, yet information first
remains the priority, too often with similar features as bourgeois media: constant
data flow, information overload and obsolescence, sensationalism (The bitter
victory of council communism,

As a final note, it is worth mentioning Nihilist Communism9, whose

authors, writing under the pseudonym of Monsieur Dupont, pin down the
general continuity of these organisational and theoretical policies with the
practices of mainstream leftism and democratic politics when they point out
that changes approach is not only modest, but also highly convenient for
maintaining neighbourly relations with the revolutionary establishment:
[] changes say that their activity... eventually might serve others as well,
but they do not explore what this means in any real depth. One reason why
changes do not seem to explore this aspect of their activity might be because the
truth of what they must do, by their own logic, is to actually go against most of the
revolutionary communist and anarchist milieu. The difference between changes
and the rest of the communist milieu is over the concept of consciousness, which
changes almost completely reject. To take the logic of their position into the arena
of the communist milieu, as an explicit argument, creates the risk of being totally
rejected by that milieu. [] To go down this theoretical road leads to the realisation
that in an important aspect there is little real difference between the projects of
anarchism and most of communism and their supposedly deadly enemy, Leninism.
If one is going to make this conclusion then one is going to lose most of ones
friends in the political milieu. changes seem to have tried to avoid this, and,
indeed, because of this they have had some limited continuing respect amongst the
communist milieu down the years. (

Between the Situationist International and La Vielle Taupe: The

Given that the Spanish strike wave of the late 60s and early 70s was
contemporary to the cycle of struggles that originated early communization
theory, it stands to reason that there would have been at least some degree of
contact between the Spanish revolutionaries of the time and the pioneers of
contemporary communisation theory. Those responsible for this
communication was none other than the members of the Movimiento Ibrico de
Liberacin (MIL), the armed agitation group whose unfortunate claim to
fame came from the execution of Salvador Puig Antich by the Spanish State in

1974. The MILs history and activities are highly worthy of attention in
themselves, as they illustrate the more general weaknesses and contradictions of
the autonomous Spanish workers movement of the early seventies.
Indeed, the MIL had close ties to this movement, which was breaking with
the organisations of the Spanish Left in the late 60s. By deliberately choosing
the term armed agitation to dissociate themselves from the notion that they
might constitute some sort of armed vanguard, the group wished to show that
it had no intention of leading the revolution and that the only purpose of the
hold-ups that the group resorted to was to finance activities destined to support
working class struggles in the Barcelona area. However, given that they expected
armed nuclei like their own to proliferate within the workers movement and
accelerate the class struggle, it cannot be denied that, contrary to what they
themselves thought, they clearly did have a vanguardist conception of their role.
Indeed, whereas Leninists sought to introduce politics into so-called
economic struggles, the MIL wished to radicalise such struggles by
providing them with their example and supplying them with expropriated
Eventually, the contradiction between the project initiated in 1969 and the
reality of what the MIL had become a group of specialized professional
revolutionaries was challenged from within its ranks, and in August 1973 the
group announced its dissolution in a public document which stated, among
other things: [] organization, politics, militantism, moralism, martyrs,
acronyms, our own label, now belong to the Old World. Unfortunately, though,
the authors of this document considered the disbanding of the group more as a
means of avoiding recuperation and stardom than as a self-critique of their
previous practice. Instead of concluding that permanent nuclei specialising in
violence were superfluous, they considered that henceforth such nuclei were to
act autonomously: i.e., in an informal, diffuse and decentralized way.
Despite its overall situationist theoretical outlook and its illusions
regarding armed agitation, the MIL was clearly influenced to some degree by
the predecessors of contemporary communisation theory, as witnessed to by the
correspondence between the group and the members of The Vielle Taupe
bookshop in Paris. As Sergi Ross Cordovilla states in Un esbozo de la historia
del MIL (A Sketch of the History of the MIL):
[] It is undeniable that the theoretical inspiration of the MIL is to be found
here [in council communism, Bordigism and Situationism] and not in anarchism,
as so often has been repeated and still is. And this theoretical evolution of the
group, the key figure of which is Santi Soler, is where another important but also
extremely ignored factor in the history of this experience turns up, namely, the role
of clarification and theoretical guidance played in relation to the MIL by the
members of the informal group that met at the La Vielle Taupe bookshop in Paris.
This bookshop was not only the main source of the theoretical texts which
influenced the MIL; its members, especially Pierre Guillaume and above all Jean
Barrot, became the main interlocutors for the discussion of theoretical matters.
Barrot established a prominent relationship with Santi Soler and was a constant
influence when it came to theoretical issues, and even played a part during the selfdissolution of the group in 1973 10. ( )

Dauv summed up the French communist milieus attitudes regarding the MIL in his text
Violence et solidarit revolutionnaires ( A
Spanish translation is available in the volume El 1000 y la OLLA: agitacin armada, formacin
terica y movimiento obrero en la Espaa salvaje, Editorial Klinamen, Madrid 2014.

Indeed, it is surprising that in the substantial body of literature dealing

with the history of the MIL, no one seems to have pointed out to date that one of
the most often quoted phrases of the group organization is the organization
of tasks, appeared for the first time in the very same article of Le Mouvement
Communiste (April 1972) in which Dauv had critiqued ICO and workers
democracy, as well as the dead end of organisational fetishism and of political
(i.e., competitive) attitudes in relations among revolutionaries. In fact, Ross
Cordovilla, undoubtedly the most serious and thorough historian of the MIL,
not only erroneously attributes this phrase to Santi Soler but also makes matters
worse by contrasting its real authors Bordiguist influence supposedly
expressed in his continued use of the term party to Solers organizational
Certainly, none of the other autonomous groups then extant and active in
Spain or in the years that immediately followed ever ventured as far as to
question the concepts of revolutionary organization or class consciousness; on
the other hand, it is also true that, unlike the French and Italian groups
Ngation and Ludd, for example, the MIL never explicitly proclaimed the end
of the workers movement, a prospect that might have seemed somewhat
premature during the heyday of the assembly movement, as in Spain, in
contrast to what was happening in France and Italy, radical non-workplace
based struggles were still a rarity.
In light of this, it is tempting to compare the accelerationist activities and
outlook of the MIL with the way that events developed elsewhere, particularly in
Italy, where, as subversive energies began to ebb in the workplace, many
revolutionaries began to stress non-workplace struggles in the sphere of
reproduction while autonomizing themselves from the industrial working class
and simultaneously adopting an immediatist perspective oriented toward
living communism in the here and now. This led some of these groupings to
theorise illegalist practices as the most coherent form of the refusal of work (as
opposed to the MILs perspective, in which such practices were justified in the
name of supporting workers struggles and bringing revolution closer).
Paradoxically, in the Italian context, the Situationist-inspired critique of
sacrifice paved the way for the replacement of militant morality with abstract
requirements of radicality, within the framework of an increasingly
individualist ideology of autonomy. As a result, the tasks of social
transformation whose realization had been subject until then to the success of
the revolutionary process as a whole were now vested upon the individuals
capacity to critique everyday life and the degree to which he or she had
broken with the dominant way of life. As revolutionary prospects continued
to recede, this standpoint evolved toward a sectarian stance defined by its
hostility to the working class now considered counterrevolutionary, the
defence of delinquency as the only respectable way of survival and the
submission of new members to initiation rites and radicality tests.
In Spain, however, the timely transition to democracy initiated in 1976
(i.e. the stabilization of capital supported by the main political and trade union
organisations of the Left) cut short any potential convergence of workers
struggles with the emerging struggles in the sphere of reproduction and the
critique of everyday life, which therefore, instead of prolonging an already

Sergi Ross Cordovilla, El MIL: una historia poltica, Alikornio Ediciones, Barcelona 2002, p.

contained proletarian offensive, were to bear the marked stamp of retreat and
accommodation to the harsh reality imposed by political stabilization and
economic crisis. Thus the countercultural explosion closely linked to
libertarian magazines like Ajoblanco, Star or Bicicleta quickly merged with
the advent of desencanto and pasotismo: a blend of disaffection, indifference,
hostility and cynicism toward the new institutions and the possibility of
changing the world coupled with a subjective determination to avoid work as
much as possible.
As the transition to democracy got under way, many of those who had
been involved in the autonomous workers movement of the 1970s including
former members of the MIL opted for critical participation in the revival of
the CNT, a collective self-defence stratagem which they somehow expected
would spare them the cost of a historical defeat. This alone says a great deal
about the limitations and illusions of the Spanish autonomous movement of the
1970s12. The result was a catastrophic fiasco, and by 1979 most of these
individuals and groups had either left the organisation or been expelled from its
The MIL had no continuity, but part of its plan for a socialist library was
inherited by the Etctera project and was eventually published under the title
Crtica de la Poltica. In fact, according to Sergi Ross, during the mid-70s, ex
MIL theorist Santi Soler was one of the founders of Etctera. The influence of
the forerunners of present-day communisation theory was evident both in the
titles chosen for publication and in the brief theoretical introductions some of
them were prefaced with (among others, A World Without Money 1 & 2, Marxs
Critical Notes on the Article: The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a
Prussian which had been translated by Jacques Camatte for the first series of
Invariance, as well as a couple of articles by Bordiga under the heading The
Democratic Illusion).
A good example of this influence appears in the caveat contained in the
introduction to the 1979 Etctera pamphlet, Apuntes sobre la autonoma
obrera (Notes on Workers Autonomy), a collection of texts on the subject of
autonomy then very much in vogue which included a translation of Henri
Simons The New Movement, as well as a text by Collegamenti on the Italian
movement of 1977:
If we were to pay attention to the period of growing disenchantment among the
activists we see around us and its deeper meaning, we would understand that the
phenomenon taking place before our eyes is exactly the opposite of an
ALTERNATIVE. AUTONOMY is not so much the preliminary step but the result that
will soon have to be taken into account by those who still insist on following the path
of politics, regardless of the fact that those politics may be autonomous or libertarian.

However, from its very inception the Barcelona group that in 1983 began
publishing a bulletin called Etctera despite some seemingly early affinities
with La Guerre Sociale embraced an eclectic theoretical mix which combined
the views of the old councilist Ultra-left (now largely converted to the gospel of
autonomy) with the anti-technological views of publications such as The Fifth

On the CNT revival and its results, see Algunos aspectos ideolgicos de la actualidad
espaola in Internacional Nexialista #1 (La Banda de Moebius, Madrid, 1977), as well as Los
1976-1981, ).

Estate and Radical Science13. Thus there is no continuity between the Etctera
groups Crtica de la Poltica series which clearly attests to the influence of
the predecessors of communisation theory and the opinions voiced in the
Etctera bulletin, which beyond the adherence to a generic autonomous
standpoint and unless otherwise stated, must be strictly considered (as is also
the case with changes et Mouvement) as individual points of view.
The last major instance of the influence of early communisation theory for
almost two decades appeared in Marxismo: seas de identidad14 [Marxism:
Identity clues], a brief book written in 1980 by former MIL theorist Santi Soler.
Written in a lively and accessible style, and openly presented as an attempt to
soberly reckon with the defeat of the 60s generation, the book simultaneously
attempted to uphold the use-value of Marxist theory from a libertarian
standpoint. Besides introducing the reader to Bordiga and the situationists.
Soler intersperses his commentary with frequent quotes of Dauv and
references to Camatte and the Etctera project. Speaking of the theory of
separate consciousness as an alibi for justifying the power of political rackets,
Soler says:
But there are subtler ways of establishing forms of separate knowledge,
apparently non-ideological forms. [] If the issue of class consciousness does not
refer to practical activity, to the real life of the working class, if it implies some sort
of intellectualism or separate knowledge, it is immaterial if the disguise it covers
itself with is Lukcs or Lenin. []
Precisely beneath the young Lukcs lurks the Bolshevik-Leninist nightmare,
beneath consciousness as separate theory what we really find is separate power or
its ultimate justification. []
What lurks, therefore, behind all these pretexts socialist theory, class
consciousness, workers autonomy, council organization, etc. has nothing to
do with the self-realization of the proletariat: the latter inevitably entails its selfsuppression.
[] There are no valid pretexts to make us admit any other organizational
notions other than the mere organization of tasks. No militants, no acronyms
and, of course, no martyrs or myths [] Organization is the organization of tasks:
as simple as that.

After that, nothing relative to the likes of Dauv and Co. would be
published in Spain for almost twenty years, until Klinamen, which originated in
2003 from the Madrid anarchist milieu of the time, began to rediscover and
publish texts on the proletarian movements of the 70s.
The present moment: after the 15-M and the indignados
One of the main consequences of the 15-M movement was that both the
issue of the limitations of self-organization and those of politics have been
simultaneously posed anew, although under vastly changed conditions. The
novel forms of protest that came to the fore in May 2011 represent a first mass
response to the restructuring of the capital relation that began in the 1980s,
which slowly shifted the centre of gravity of social struggles from the terrain of
production to the sphere of reproduction and is ultimately at the root of the

See radio interview with Etctera member Carlos Garca Velasco in

Ediciones Libertarias (Coleccin La Comuna), Madrid, 1980.

present political crisis15. Although they seem to lack the dynamism historically
associated with labour struggles and remain cross-class and political in
character, these struggles have involved a growing mass of the surplus
population, the unemployed, and the precariously employed.
This proliferation of self-organized movements denouncing really existing
politics in the name of a generalized demand for political and economic reform
came into being just a few months before a denationalized State amended the
Spanish Constitution to incorporate fiscal, monetary and social protection
policies in order to comply with European Union deficit and debt stipulations,
and thus make the slightest reform impossible. Indeed, the present political
crisis was, for all practical purposes, unleashed from above by the ruling class in
order to accelerate neoliberal policies. Consequently, the projects of political
reform now vying for power in Spain are hamstrung in advance and it will no
doubt be enlightening to see what actual role they are carving out for themselves
in the immediate future.
Nonetheless, the 15-M movement and its offshoots must be thanked for
making it increasingly clear that self-organisation and autonomy no longer
constitute a revolutionary perspective, but the limits which the proletariat will
come up against again and again as the crisis deepens and it is forced to struggle
for its reproduction. Moreover and unintentionally, by palpably proving that the
bulk of the categories of the radical critique of the 1960s now play the role of a
harmless diversion that does not really point beyond the political framework of
radical democratism, they have made an enormous contribution to the
clarification of the present situation.
A good case in point was the demand for real democracy, opposed by the
15-Ms radical minority with the slogan all power to the assemblies. To some
extent, this expressed the deadlock between the reformist and radical
sectors of the movement over the effort to affirm a common belonging (the
choice being between the citizen or a mystified working class), but the truth
is that this deadlock only served to mask a deeper underlying unity. In fact, what
the dynamics of the movement of occupied squares and its aftermath have
actually evidenced was the increasing meaninglessness of such an alternative,
since a constituting identity, organised around the working class or otherwise,
was no longer really available. Having said that, it is completely beyond
activisms possible range of vision that the class struggle might be the process
whereby an essentially segmented class engages with its contradiction to capital.
Therefore, the illusion of generality nurtured by activism, whether in the form of
the myth of a general political self-organisation or that of specific struggles
gradually overcoming their separation and converging, is now increasingly
bankrupt and must eventually implode along with activism itself.
In fact, all power to the assemblies has now become the common
watchword, not just of a few workerist diehards, but of all those forces wishing
to perpetuate politics in every sphere of life and turn the entirety of social
existence into a management problem. There is no essential reason why this
radical standpoint and the perspectives of those who have rallied around
Podemos, for example, should be forever at odds. They are already united in the

It would be highly advisable not to lose sight of the fact that the network methods and forms of
the 15-M movement did not come out of nowhere, and also to keep in mind the strong
resemblance they bear to those of the autonomous activists of the radical wing of the anti-war
movement that played an important role in the PP governments ejection from power following
the Madrid bombings of March 2004.

search for solutions to the present crisis in the form of peoples power,
regardless of whether the instrument of that power is to be a democratically
reformed national State or pure direct democracy from below, the
combination of which, moreover, is not exactly unheard of.
In the interim separating the 15-M from the present moment, the struggles
developing in Spain have moved forward in modest but important respects. The
Marches of Dignity that arrived in Madrid in March 2013, for example, were
witnessed to the overthrow of the long-established relationship between mass
demonstrations and rioting. One of the main bones of contention that had
plagued the 15-M movement, i.e., the zeal with which the majority took it upon
itself to identify and hand over supposedly violent individuals to the police,
finally came to an end.
Then, in January 2014, the Gamonal riots, which erupted in Burgos over
the opposition of a working class neighbourhood to the cost of the city councils
intended redevelopment of the areas main street while expenditures on social
spending plummeted, led to widespread solidarity demonstrations throughout
the country, which marked a turning point as working class youth, the urban
poor and ordinary citizens took to the streets in more than thirty cities. There
were clashes with the police in Madrid for two consecutive nights, while in
Barcelona, sound cannons were deployed for the first time in order to disperse
the thousands of protesters who marched through the city centre on January 17,
erecting barricades, smashing bank windows and attacking a police station.
Just a few months later, towards the end of May, serious riots broke out in
Barcelona when the occupied social centre of Can Vies, located in the historic
working class neighbourhood of Sants, was evicted. For the next six days and
nights thousands upon thousands of local residents, young and old, workers and
unemployed, took to the streets. By Friday evening, there had been protests in
over forty different neighbourhoods and towns, as well as rioting in Gracia, Sant
Andreu, Noubarris and other neighbourhoods.
Once again, as opposed to what had so often been the case in previous
years, no condemnation of violence was issued, nor was any wedge driven
between good and bad protest. The only line drawn was the line between
institutional violence and those determined to resist it.
Both the mass movements and the riots we see developing now are two
aspects of the same crisis of reproduction. Peaceful demonstrations break out
into riots because struggles over immediate demands are constantly met with
repressive action by the police, which has now become a fundamental moment
of the reproduction of the class relation, as exemplified in the Protection of
Public Safety Bill passed by the government in November 2013 16. Meanwhile,
real wages have dropped substantially, poverty and malnutrition are on the rise
and hundreds of thousands of people unable to keep up mortgage payments
have been evicted. To sum up, the current conjuncture is one of deepening
economic woes for most people, contempt and bitter distrust for a political
establishment unceasingly involved in new corruption scandals, a questioning of
many if not all institutions, and an increasingly exasperated and insubordinate

It is now illegal to participate in a demonstration before state institutions without prior

notification of the relevant government office. Circulating riot images during demonstrations
can also constitute an offence punishable by a 600,000 fine. Calling for demonstrations
through the Internet, social networks, or any other means may also be penalized.

What for some time seemed to be absent from this scenario were precisely
workplace struggles. However, over the last two years workers of many different
sectors despite the fact that struggles remain localised and are usually
defensive have increasingly gone on strike, and some of these strikes have
been quite successful, which also represents a reversal of the prevailing trend for
many years. The White Tide set up to oppose hospital cuts and privatisations
scored a spectacular victory in Madrid, after its strikes and protests forced the
courts to intervene to prevent six hospitals from being privatised. Nonetheless,
workers struggles are not converging with social movements. This underlines
one of the stumbling blocks of the present situation, namely, that struggles in
the sphere of reproduction remain separate from struggles in production. Only a
qualitative leap will allow struggles to go beyond demands in both spheres and
pose the matter of the very reproduction of class relations.
As Thorie Communiste say:
The supersession of really existing self-organisation will not be accomplished
by the production of the true, the right, the good self-organisation; it will be
achieved against really existing self-organisation, but within it, from it 17.

As long as class confrontation fails to positively initiate the communisation

of society i. e., the appropriation of the means of subsistence, communication
and transport for the purpose of simultaneously attacking capital and
abolishing the proletariat, self-organisation and defensive struggles will remain
the only available form of action. However, the qualitative leap between one
stage and the other will not be prefigured by the coming into being of some
form of political unity amongst proletarians, but by the proliferation of rifts
within existing struggles and conflictual encounters between different practices,
such as those that will arise around the gender issue. In order to really unite,
proletarians will have to truly go beyond this society and concretely abolish
their separation by relating as individuals to one another outside of the terms of
the class relation.
The theorising of events does not necessarily allow one to anticipate what
these will be, and the spreading of an idea, however brilliant it may seem, can
neither produce a revolution nor hasten its arrival. Theory is merely a necessary
moment of the self-critical character of really existing struggles, and therefore
partakes of their contradictory nature. Far from invalidating it, the acceptance
of the incomplete nature of communization theory is what allows it to de
adequate to that which it describes. Disseminating the concept of
communisation, then, has little or nothing to do with revealing to the real
movement what it truly is, not to mention with the quixotic venture of going
about trying to raise consciousness. This is not to say, however, that the
possible production of communism is alien to strengthening the ties between
increasingly self-critical struggles and the rootedness of a revolutionary theory.


Self-organisation is the first act of the revolution; it then becomes an obstacle which the