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...