There and back again: mapping the pathways within autonomist Marxism
by Steve Wright
How to interpret the contours of autonomist Marxism over the past quarter century? Before 1979, any discussion of the topic would necessarily have centred upon the Italian experience. And yet by the early eighties, with the previously close bonds between labour process, movement and theory seemingly broken, the project that had come to be known within Italy as operaismo (workerism) looked to be smashed ‘into pieces’. As a consequence, whatever could still be called Italian ‘autonomist Marxism’ appeared at that point to be, outside the work of a few isolated individuals, largely a matter of historical curiosity. As Valerio Evangelista later recalled, by that time
all the best militants were in jail or on the run, we found ourselves with hardly any theorists … there were few comrades left, the young people who earlier had been with us in consistent numbers (if not all of them) distanced themselves. The response to such a situation was the social centres – but in the sense of their negative side, of an almost natural tendency, where the social centre became an oasis, a ghetto, even if that wasn’t true in every case.
A decade later, however, the picture had changed
to the fact that far from being anachronistic, autonomist thought has demonstrated a tremendously resilient ability to mutate along with the times.
The purpose of this paper, then, is to provide some leads for those interested in exploring in detail what has happened within ‘autonomist Marxism’ since the defeats of the Italian movement at the end of the seventies. As will be seen, any such discussion will oblige us to cast our gaze far beyond the Italian context. As countless writers have indicated, ‘autonomist Marxism’ has never been a purely Italian phenomenon, and its international diffusion is one of the most distinctive aspects of its development since 1979. Of course, the notion that this exercise can be carried out in sufficient detail within the confines of a single paper is absurd. Nonetheless, it may be possible at least to engage in some sort of preliminary reconnoitres, survey the broad lay of the land, poke around in a few nooks and crannies, and from all this compose questions worthy of those braver souls prepared to accept this challenge.
But first a few cautions concerning labels. If some of us who have puzzled over the question tend to equate Italian ‘autonomist Marxism’ with many of the threads stemming from operaismo, it’s also worth remembering that a) this label is not typically embraced within such strands; b) these threads hold quite divergent views as to the relationship between their current work and the workerism of the sixties and seventies. Berardi, for example, prefers to speak of ‘compositionism’ (referring to the method of reading class composition), while Negri is emphatic that fundamentally new forms of social relations demand a break with conceptual frameworks developed in a different era, starting with operaismo itself. If we turn to the person who first coined the term ‘autonomist Marxism’ – Harry Cleaver – we find that his own usage implies something broader than operaismo and its aftermath:
What gives meaning to the concept of ‘autonomist Marxism’ as a particular tradition is the fact that we can identify, within the larger Marxist tradition, a variety of movements, politics and thinkers who have emphasized the autonomous power of workers – autonomous from capital, from their official organizations (e.g. the trade unions, the political parties) and, indeed, the power of particular groups of workers to act autonomously from other groups (e.g. women from men). By ‘autonomy’ I mean the ability of workers to define their own interests and to struggle for them – to go beyond mere reaction to exploitation, or to self-defined ‘leadership’ and to take the offensive in ways that shape the class struggle and define the future.
If nothing else, then, perhaps the term ‘autonomist Marxism’ itself deserves to be reviewed as part of the process of making sense of what has come after 1979: does it help to explain the processes under review, or might they indicate its very limitations?
For that matter, how cohesive was Italian workerism itself, even in its heyday? The extensive primary research carried out since the late nineties by Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi and Gigi Roggero bears out their characterisation of operaismo as ‘neither a homogenous doctrinaire corpus, nor a unitary political subject’, but rather ‘multiple pathways with their roots in a common theoretical matrix’. All the same, certain core elements can be identified. Speaking at a moment when the tendency had seemingly reached its nadir, Sergio Bologna offered the following thoughts on this ‘common theoretical matrix’:
I believe above all that operaismo
was an exaltation – sometimes uncritical – of the working class, but also a
great exaltation of power. Operaismo
was born, not by chance, with Operai e
capitale. It’s not clear which was greater: the paean
to the working class, or that to the capitalist capacity of subsuming this
working class from the point of view of its components. So it was not by
chance that many of its theorists later became theorists of the State, and
today are only theorists of governability. And I don’t believe that we can call
the latter traitors, because this eulogy of capital’s power [
Nor did this dichotomy disappear with the embrace by
Tronti and others of the Italian Communist Party. Berardi has shown in some
detail the manner in which these two spirits played themselves out within
Potere Operaio, while
Ironically, one of the strongest affinities binding those who have shared in the tradition of operaismo is precisely a contempt for traditions – particularly ‘revolutionary traditions’. After all, it was a commonplace within the workerist literature of the sixties and seventies to exalt the discontinuities and leaps both in struggles and in ‘working class science’, in organisational projects no less than theoretical developments. To put this in the words of Tronti’s classic text Operai e capitale, all great discoveries—‘ideas of simple men which seem madness to the scientists’ – have been made by ‘dangerous leaps’, by breaking ‘the thread of continuity’.
As with the relationship between autonomy and power, however, this notion of discontinuities could be taken in quite different directions: at one extreme, perhaps, there was Negri’s argument in the early eighties celebrating ‘Communist transition [as] absence of memory’ (and the abandonment of the dialectic as a useful explanatory tool of social antagonism), at the other Peppino Ortoleva’s insistence a few years earlier, in reference to class antagonism in the United States, that
the hegemony of capitalist culture, and its version of American history, does not translate into a tabula rasa of the ‘collective memory’ of the American working class. A store of working class traditions remains, but it is the patrimony not of the American proletariat as a whole, but rather—disarticulated and sectionalised—of individual groups of workers, of rank-and-file union experiences etc.
In trying to make sense of all this, before 1979 and after, it will be impossible to survey the terrain properly without constant reference to the work on operaismo by Borio, Pozzi and Roggero, published in 2002. Their book Futuro Anteriore provides a rich (and at times provocative) overview of the themes addressed in the interviews, while its associated CD-ROM of nearly sixty interviews is the richest single documentary source to date of reflections from participants in the operaista experience. Here is how Sergio Bologna made sense of that project:
It was a strange event and it surprised all of us, considering that amongst us there were people who had not spoken nor had any personal relations with one another on any level for years and years, so divergent were our individual paths. One day in 2000, without denying their past, though critical of their experiences, they agreed to recognise themselves in a common tradition.
What follows, then, will draw not only on materials produced across the arc of time from 1980 to 2005, but also some of the reflections captured in the fieldwork of Borio, Pozzi and Roggero. Along the way, it will illustrate a point made in Enda Brophy’s excellent survey of ‘operaisti after operaismo’, Recounting an important conference held in Rome in 2002, called in part for the launch of Futuro Anteriore, he reminds us that for all the talk of a ‘common tradition’ after 1979,
Deep differences over key issues of theory and practice have further
distanced some of the protagonists of those years from each other, a process
which had already started by the end of the 1960s as the level of social
How to map this fallout from the operaismo of the sixties and seventies? A number of different approaches spring to mind here: maps constructed in terms of tendencies, or of projects, or of categories. As regards the first approach, Chris Wright has produced a very interesting chart of ‘different tendencies within libertarian Marxism’, which is useful in situating autonomist Marxism against a broader political and intellectual history [Figure 1]. Originally designed to accompany an online text archive, the stress is placed upon ‘track[ing] unique contributions in theory and practice’, while acknowledging that ‘these are not perfect matches and the relations are in fact much more complex’. Wright’s map differentiates between ‘Operaismo (1960-72)’, ‘Autonomia (1972-80)’, and ‘Autonomist Marxism’, while indicating the influence upon each of other currents, such as the Johnson-Forest Tendency. Turning to an accompanying discussion document, however, it becomes clearer just how complex some of the relationships have been. Take relations within the English-speaking world between ‘open Marxism’ and autonomist Marxism, something we will return to below. As Wright himself indicates,
Depending on who one talks to, Open Marxism includes autonomist Marxism or autonomist Marxism includes Open Marxism, though the separation over the importance of Hegel and the question of dialectic seems to provide a basic grounds for differentiating the two tendencies.
Another limit in organising a map in this manner is apparent when we seek some correlation between ‘tendencies’ on the one hand, and individuals or collectivities on the other. For example, where might we situate Primo Moroni – a quintessential ‘libertarian marxist’ – within such a diagram? For rather than move from tendency to tendency over time, as more than a few have done in their political education, Moroni’s work was long infused by what he himself once called ‘this indefinable area that stretches from the bordighists to the proto-situationists, the councillists, to the internationalists, the anarchists, to the anarcho-communists, the libertarian communists’.
All of which brings us to my original starting point:
a map that Primo Moroni drew up sometime in the late eighties [Figure 2].
Let’s look at
A careful examination of
The second point is that, to
Why labour the point over this map? One reason is that
it may be worth considering what can be learned by attempting to extend
At the same time, it may be that a different kind of mapping is needed. It could be entertaining to try and trace the trajectories of individuals – then again, it might be more useful to attempt to map out the development of particular categories and concepts. So here is a different kind of map, which tries to represent the evolution of categories over time since the eighties [Figure 4]. The terms should be familiar enough: they represent some of the key categories used in efforts by certain writers touched by the workerist experience to understand the nature of social subjectivity over the past generation or so. The dominant term for the past decade or more within this framework is, of course, multitude. As can be seen, other key concepts connect it back to a category popularised by Negri and others in the seventies – operaio sociale. And while they continue to be used, and are of interest in their own right, terms such as mass intellectuality and general intellect can also be seen as bridges from operaio sociale to multitude: especially in the late eighties and early nineties, when movements such as the Pantera within higher education prompted some circles to engage in new reflections concerning the nature of intellectual labour.
There is unlikely to be great controversy in an exercise like this – these terms are now familiar to many English-language readers. The real point I want to make here is different: what picture emerges when we attempt to broaden the parameters of discussion, and try to encompass all those ways of seeing that have been touched in some important way by operaismo and its fallout, bearing in mind that in doing so, we are obliged to reach well beyond Italy itself?
If we attempt this, the picture before us is rather different [Figure 5]. Indeed, surveying the literature over the past 25 years, one uncovers a whole panoply of social figures. In the next section I’d like to explore each of these in turn, since they can tell us a lot about developments on this front since 1980 or so. For now we can note that whatever else, most are recognisable as class figures. In its earliest use, perhaps, multitude might have been more ambiguous in this sense – but there were always exponents of the term who have insisted on its class nature (for example, the editors of DeriveApprodi), while Negri has also been emphatic in recent years in arguing that multitude is a class category.
We could draw a similar conceptual map to represent different understandings since the seventies of Power, with terms like Empire, Warfare State, Integrated World Capitalism, Planetary Work Machine, cognitive capitalism, postfordism or New Enclosures, alongside old favourites like imperialism, capital and the state. And we could sketch out a third map that looks at the processes that characterise the relationship between capital and class (or Potere and potenza if you prefer): older terms like self-valorisation, self-determination, restructuring, the refusal of work; newer terms like exodus, strange loops, cooperation, common, guaranteed income, and non-state public sphere.
Still, it’s the pathways that are the most intriguing things to explore: the various threads of argument, with all their twists and turns: the intersections, the echoes, and the silences that resonate between both these threads, and the movements and events they seek to comprehend. The next part of this paper, then, will review some of this material, conscious – as stated at the beginning – that much remains to be done before we can properly understand the wealth as well as limitations of the various threads that have descended from operaismo’s collapse a generation ago.
There are worse ways of following some of these pathways than by examining in turn at each of the social figures displayed in the last map. The first – easy to overlook, since many have long considered it as much a dead dog as Hegel – is mass worker. Here some of the most fascinating work was carried out in the aftermath of the FIAT defeat, often by editors of the journal Primo Maggio, culminating with Marco Revelli’s magisterial history of Lavorare in FIAT. But can the mass worker be dismissed as a subject of purely historical interest? Guido Bianchini once pointed out that ‘The end of development in one place is development elsewhere’, and the past twenty years have certainly seen ‘mass workers’ place their stamp upon a range of once ‘peripheral’ social formations, from Korea to South Africa.
Another important exploration of class composition after 1980, again spearheaded by some members of Primo Maggio, concerned workers in the transportation sector, and the journal’s work in this area can be seen as anticipating significant cycles of struggle that continue into the present day. While Primo Maggio would finally close its doors in the late eighties, Bologna has continued with research into working class history, with studies of the German workers and Nazism, and the development of class composition in Italy. As always with historical research conducted by exponents of the ‘school of class composition’, contemporary political concerns were never far away. But to Bologna’s mind, much of his most important labour-related research has addressed a social subject quite removed from those examined by operaismo in its glory days: the self-employed worker, whose numbers in Italy were increasing markedly in the early nineties. As he put it at one of the public meetings called to discuss the research of Borio, Pozzi and Roggero,
Self-employed labour, to go back to a theme dear to my heart, is no longer capable of that conflict of which operaismo conceived: that is, of workplace conflict [conflitto sindacale] as conflict par excellence. Not because it is not so disposed subjectively, but because the structure of the relations of production has changed. So a pedigree workerist [l’operaista doc] would cancel self-employed labour from the list of subjects, and treat it as the multitude’s swamp and Vendée.
In the mid eighties, many Italian ‘pedigree workerists’ took heart from the COBAS phenomenon, wherein networks of unofficial rank-and-file groupings primarily based in the public sector (first and foremost, railway staff and teachers) challenged both their employers, and the traditional role of unions in representing employees’ interests within the wage relation. While articles on the COBAS can be found across the ex-workerist and left libertarian press of the time, it was in those journals with a particular focus upon the paid workplace – Collegamenti, and later Incompatibili – that the most space was devoted to the new groupings, along with the so-called alternative unions which came in their wake in the nineties. With similar movements appearing in France and Spain, the question of such workers’ struggles against restructuring – their potentialities for extension into the private sector, the corporatist temptations which they faced – meant that the circumstances of public sector employees were often to the fore within concrete class composition analyses carried out in the years that spanned the mid eighties to the early nineties.
As Paolo Virno has argued, the experiences of the ‘Movement of ’77’ left a vast range of questions unanswered, questions which would resurface again from the eighties around discussions of social conflict in a time of so-called ‘post-fordism’. In terms of the meaning of political recomposition, such questions included matters of representation and organisation; in terms of changes within class composition, they included the growing importance for capitalist accumulation of labour processes apparently outside the fordist workplace regimes that had engendered the mass worker. One of these key concepts raised in and around 1977, only to make a significant resurgence in the last decade, is that of precarity. The matter continued to concern the likes of Collegamenti and Primo Maggio into the early eighties, where the focus was often upon short term work projects provided for government authorities. In terms of a continued practical reference point for this concept within Italy, the struggles of precarious workers wove themselves in and out of a number of broader social conflicts as the eighties progressed, starting with the education sector. By the mid nineties, ‘precarity’ had become a theme taken up by a section of the social centres movement (an early manifestation of the Tute Bianche was as activists around casualised working conditions) with whom a younger generation of workerist-influenced theorists were engaged.
The exploration of casual workers’ experiences was also a central theme for a German circle that took up class composition analysis in the eighties. As some of them later explained to John Holloway,
In the beginning of the 1980s the cycle of factory worker struggles was over, but for many young people it was inconceivable to adjust to wage labour and to work away at a job until reaching pension age. Additionally, we ourselves refused to strive individually through a professional career for a better place in the capitalist hierarchy. Out of this grew the practice of jobbing: to do any old shitty job for a short time, in order then to have time for ourselves, for political struggle and for pleasure. In formal terms, we worked under conditions that would later be characterised by the sociologists as ‘precarious’ in the sense of being vulnerable to one-sided measures by capital. But it was even easier then to use the regulations of labour law and the welfare state for our own needs.
As the editors of Wildcat went on to detail, their initial stance shifted significantly as the decade advanced. In the middle of the eighties, however, a former member of the journal Zerowork could be heard arguing that a critical engagement with the informal economy might also provide a ‘basis for social autonomy’. In contrast, Sergio Bologna’s comments at a 1984 Canadian conference on operaismo and autonomia characterised the notion of ‘precarious labour as self-liberation’ as no more than a passing phase, doomed to extinction with the shakeout of the informal economy itself.
As is well known, circumstances surrounding casual or precarious work would be rather different by the late nineties, when a younger generation connected to Wildcat developed links with small groups elsewhere in Europe (e.g. Precari Nati in Italy) and initiated a workers’ enquiry into the condition of call centre workers. While their efforts would provoke controversy in some quarters, they can also be seen as an important spur to a new – and welcome – round of enquiry and co-research undertaken in recent years across a number of European countries. In terms of movements, work around precarity has likewise been fundamental to the networks that have made such a success of EuroMayDay of late. Then again, as Angela Mitropoulos has argued in a recent issue of Mute, if precarious labour has in fact been the norm rather than the exception during the capital relation’s history, then perhaps in certain cases ‘the recent rise of precarity is actually its discovery among those who had not expected it’, given their blindness to longstanding hierarchies within waged and unwaged labour. 
In the seventies, migrant worker was almost another way of saying mass worker within the operaista lexicon, and a number of studies on the subject appeared in the Materiali Marxisti book series and elsewhere. As Yann Moulier Boutang makes clear, however, even during workerism’s heyday, the differing circumstances between Italy and elsewhere paid short shrift to any attempt to transpose insights mechanically from one social formation to the other, particularly in terms of understanding what migration might mean for the process of class recomposition:
I have not yet spoken of an encounter that was decisive for me: that with the comrades of immigation. In fact the question of immigration interested our Italian comrades, especially those of P[otere] O[peraio]. However Italian immigration was interesting as a mode of propagation, but it was not the theoretical problem of immigration as a fracture [spaccatura] within class composition, as a real problem of the latter. I remember that it was difficult to explain to our comrades at FIAT or to Romano Alquati that having 22 nationalities is not the same thing as having one Italian working class: even if there were Italians from the South, it was something different. And when 300 Tunisians were hired at FIAT in ’73, I remember perfectly that I said to Alquati, to Toni and to others that this phenomenon needed to be watched closely, because it was very important. That they did not was, I think, a great error …
Moulier Boutang’s own work, as is known, has placed migration at the centre of its reflections. And in Italy itself, particularly since the beginning of the nineties, there have been a number of important studies of migrant workers and migration, beginning with writers connected to the journal Altreragioni. In terms of the emergence of an identifiable postoperaista sensibility, an attentiveness towards migration has dovetailed with political work around migrants and detainees in Europe. For Sandro Mezzadra, it was an encounter with the research of Moulier Boutang, alongside his own political work in Genoa, that brought home an understanding of migrants as active agents, rather than simply passive victims at the mercy of their circumstances. According to Mezzadra, then, the circumstances of migrant workers can be seen as emblematic within contemporary class composition, so long as one avoids reductionist temptations:
We cannot get rid of ‘generalizing’ concepts precisely because we are aware of their limits, which are the limits of a commonality which cannot be stressed at the expenses of the plurality of peculiar subject positions which defines the composition of living labor. In this way we can talk for example of migrant labor as a subjective figure which shows an element of commonality which is shared by the whole of contemporary living labor (that is, a general attitude to mobility and flexibility, the subjective counterpart of the ‘flexible regime of accumulation’ described for instance by David Harvey), without for this reason on the one hand sacrificing the subjective and objective peculiarity of the experience of mobility by migrants, and without on the other hand forgetting the radical diversity of migrants’ experience itself. 
Thus far the social subjects explored have each had a certain
sectoral specificity, for the all the claims that might be made on their behalf
in terms of commonality. Before turning to the category multitude, I want to
address two other concepts that others with an operaista past have engendered in their efforts to construct a more
global reading of class composition today. The first of these is the
hyper-proletariat, a term coined by Romano Alquati. Long a subterranean
influence within the social centres in
Franco Berardi’s notion of the cognitariat has certain points of convergence with Alquati’s work, especially in the attention paid to the subsumption of intellectual capacities to capital, as well as its curiosity as to what that subsumption might mean for the psyche. But like other postoperaista approaches, many of the most important premises informing Berardi’s outlook are quite alien to Alquati’s efforts to maintain, come what may, a particular reading of marxian categories such as value. Evolving from earlier reflections upon ‘the virtual class, that is the cycle of globalised mental labour’, Berardi’s is an optimistic view that sees possibilities for the self-organisation of ‘cognitive labour’ in the wake of the dotcom crash and global opposition to the current war in Iraq. His cognitariat is narrower, however, than the multitude: perhaps it is the ‘online’ facet of that immaterial labour described by Lazzarato and others. At the same time, Berardi’s analysis is far from being a celebration of so-called ‘virtual’ culture. As he argued in a 2002 interview,
The idea of the cognitariat, and of the ‘cognitarian’ as a member of the cognitariat, is connected to the idea that during the last years, perhaps the last decade, we lost touch with our body – with our social body, and our physical, erotic body. Net culture and all the new forms of digital production and new media have erased our relationship with our social body. But at the time of social and economic crises we are forced to take account of the fact that we do have a body, that in fact we do have a social and a physical body. Cognitarians are the workers of the virtual production. There is a moment when they can become aware of the fact that they are not purely virtual, they are not purely economic, that they also are physical bodies.
It would take a separate essay to explore the category
multitude, which is unquestionably the best known of all the terms touched upon
so far. The central role of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in formulating and
popularising the term is unquestionable. Along with its counterpart Empire,
multitude has been adopted as an explanatory tool by a range of influential
circles within anti-capitalist movements both in
The last category concerning social subjectivity may
well be the least known of those under discussion, at least within
Once you saw that the unwaged sector of the working class is really the foundation of the accumulation process then a new priority inevitably develops … Introducing unwaged workers is not a matter of a contest over who is of ‘more or less importance’ or of who is more or less exploited, but of having a better understanding of what keeps capitalism alive. Once you bring into focus the largely unwaged part of the reproduction cycle of labor power, then your politics change dramatically. You immediately have to deal with divisions and hierarchies that are often neglected by working class movements and are even engineered into working class organizations. One merely has to glance at the scandalous history of working class racism and sexism to get the point.
So there you have it: a whole gamut of social figures, many of which overlap in content while often differing in emphasis. Which raises another question: is all of this primarily about the search for a privileged layer within class composition, one that can assert its hegemony over the class as a whole? Monty Neill and other members of Midnight Notes have been emphatic on this score: if much of the operaismo of the sixties and seventies entailed efforts ‘in analyzing or searching out class vanguards’, ‘to do a class composition analysis’ today means ‘not to locate a new vanguard, but to help the many class sectors come together’ in ‘the class struggle to cease to be proletarian’. One useful exercise, therefore, would be to interrogate the various accounts of the social subjects above from this perspective. Another would be to explore the contemporary meaning of the old workerist category of ‘cycle of struggles’ and its relationship to ‘development’. Can an ongoing dialectic still be posited between the two, as some world systems theorists have done? Or has the bond connecting them snapped forever? In either case, what are the implications for a project of social autonomy aimed at escaping the capital relation altogether, rather than surviving within it as amenably as possible?
‘Only connect’, opening up channels of communication internationally, this is at least as urgently on the Italian agenda in the 1980s as it was in the early 1960s – in spite of a new dimension of massive arrests , authoritarian threats, and attempts to atomize collective interests.
With these words, Ferruccio Gambino closed his brief 1981 account of Italian links to other revolutionary experiences since the days of Socialisme ou barbarie and Correspondence. And if thanks to this and other texts, we now know something about such links, a lot more work needs to be done in tracing the role of those individuals like Gambino, Ed Emery, Harry Cleaver and John Merrington who – before and after 1979 – provided gateways through which reflections upon theory and practice could pass in and out of the English-speaking world.
If interesting work was undertaken in a number of
other countries by operaismo-influenced
writers during the seventies, these tended nonetheless to be overshadowed by
In the Britain of the late eighties and
early nineties, there were resonances with the so-called ‘open Marxism’ of John
Holloway, Werner Bonefeld and others, some of whose theorists, like those of Collegamenti, made explicit reference to
earlier council communist traditions. Within
Growing access to the Internet complicated the picture still further a decade later. By then, we can also see efforts to bring understandings of autonomist Marxism developed elsewhere to bear upon the Italian scene. Here is how Massimo De Angelis recalls the early days of the journal Vis-à-vis:
I thought that, just as the impact of operaismo and Italian Marxism represented a breath of fresh air for American Marxism, opening it to the thematics of subjectivity, reproposing in Italy a series of works from American autonomist Marxism (which was sensitive and open to a series of thematics left in the margins by us) could in return contribute positively to going beyond musty old diatribes and rigid political and theoretical attitudes.
Whether that particular exercise proved successful remains a matter of debate. One the other hand, as Enda Brophy has pointed out, for more than a decade there has been an engagement between certain English-language writers in communication studies, and some Italian theorists identified with postoperaismo. Perhaps the emblematic text here on the English-language side is Nick Dyer-Witheford’s Cybermarx, published in 1999. From the Italian side, Franco Berardi – whose own reflections frequently percolate into English via media activist channels intrigued with his work in Telestreet and elsewhere – has demonstrated a similar interest in Dyer-Witheford’s writings. Less well known amongst English-language readers, yet of great relevance in this regard, is Christian Marazzi’s work on the place of language in contemporary production, collective identity and conflict.
If the threads of autonomist Marxism had become even
more diffuse by the nineties, there were nonetheless some forums which served
as points of encounter. Without question the most successful of these has been
the journal (and now publishing house) Derive
Approdi, which has become the important crossroads for encounters between different
viewpoints from the many strands stemming from operaismo – and the place of a certain contamination and dialogue
between them and other experiences. In recent times Derive Approdi has extended its gaze beyond
In their account of operaismo, Borio, Pozzi and Roggero argue that at its peak, the tendency established a mechanism through which the ideas of a small band of theorists were transmitted, via a diffuse layer of cadres, to a broad mass movement. Whatever the accuracy of their assertions, no-one could seriously advance such claims about the relationship between the theoretical strands of Italian autonomist Marxism and the movements that have emerged since the eighties. All the same, certain linkages can sometimes be traced, especially since the nineties. But while the differences amongst certain autonomist marxist frameworks during the nineties paralleled in part differences within the revived Italian movement itself, anyone with personal experience of such matters can say how imperfect such parallels could sometimes be. To take two examples at random: by the mid nineties a growing affinity could be detected between Antonio Negri and the political formation descended from the dominant autonomist faction in the Veneto twenty years before. On one fundamental level, however, that of self-defined political identity, important contrasts could still be seen, with Negri continuing to claim the mantle of communism, while the circles around Radio Sherwood and the ‘rete autonoma del nord-est’ explicitly abandoned that label. In a similar way, the journal Vis-à-vis then published materials for the most part of a distinctly left libertarian stamp, yet the political tendency with which the majority of its editors were associated – Autonomia di Classe – was rather broader in its composition, shading into neo-leninist positions at odds with the situationist and councillist resonances within the journal itself.
Finally, it mustn’t be thought that many of the
connections being established or re-established after 1979 were only the work
of threads emanating from the central trunk of operaismo. In the eighties, Collegamenti
translated materials not only from Wildcat
Wrapping things up for now
My answer is, ‘it depends’…
I’d like to end on a provocative note: first with some thoughts about the varying understandings of a few other key terms and texts, then with some comments taken from the interviews carried out for Futuro Anteriore. There are a number of points of references that, whatever the passage of years, remain as crucial markers for understanding what has happened in so-called autonomist Marxism since 1979. Let’s start with Marx’s ‘Fragment on Machines’, which first made its appearance in Italian in the pages of Quaderni Rossi. Here, it’s hard to resist asserting the following: ‘Tell me your views on the “Fragment on Machines”, and I’ll tell you your views on everything else’. Many of us are familiar with the different postoperaista treatments of this text – above all that provided by Paolo Virno, which dovetails with his reading of Marx’s category ‘communism of capital’ – and can discern easily enough the political consequences that stem from those interpretations. But there are other, lesser known readings that also deserve consideration. Some may be aware of Alquati’s continued insistence that the key consequence of Marx’s line of argument in this section of the Grundrisse is that capital can not escape socially necessary labour time’s function at the heart of its own valorisation. But what can we make of his assertion, back in 1977, that
Above all Marx is not speaking here of the future, but of the capitalist system of his time, of the factory as it already functioned then. He is not speaking in fact of the end of capitalist valorisation, but of a passage within the real subsumption of the textile industry towards the middle of the nineteenth century.
Another theme worthy of exploration is the borrowing
from other social theories by strands emerging from the wreckage of operaismo. Some of this ground has been
well-covered, particularly in terms of engagement with French theory (but how
many commentators reach back before 1979 to examine in detail the French connection to ‘mao-dadaism’ in
not the transition to a post-Fordist model, but a continuous recombination of old and new elements of domination in order to decompose labour power politically within a newly flexibilised system of production.
This paper takes its title from Tolkien – for family reasons I have been subjected in recent times almost endlessly to the cinematic version of his trilogy. But the sense of return it tries to suggest is rather different to that of Frodo. It is a sensibility evoked by Mario Dalmaviva, one of the many participants in the operaista adventure who deserve to be better known outside Italy. This is how he characterised the state of things when interviewed for the Futuro Anteriore project back in February 2001:
In my opinion there was a great social revolution in Italy. It didn’t become a political revolution as we had wanted, and yet it happened, and it prompted a ferocious reaction from the other side [controparte] that’s continued up until the present day. They won, but not only don’t they know where they’re going, they don’t even know where they are. The problem is that we don’t know either.
The second comment is from Alisa Del Re, one of the few female voices within what has always been a largely male enterprise, and whose interview for Futuro Anteriore is the first to be published in English. A workerist feminist whose political and theoretical work charted its own distinctive course from the seventies, Del Re was also amongst those imprisoned as part of the notorious ‘7 April case’. Looking back over the past 25 years or so, she has this to say:
Today, when I hear of the feminisation of labour, affective labour or immaterial labour, I laugh: it feels like they are joking because we used to say these things every day in the ‘70s, when we imagined that there is a form of labour that is neither accountable nor measured and yet is what makes us reproduce the labour-power and allows for material production to take place, something without which material production is impossible. The fact that, when it was emerging, the movement never made these issues its own allowed the capitalist productive structure a great advantage that we are now chasing after, because all current debates on immaterial labour and, I insist, affectivity (Toni calls it precisely that, as well as ‘affection’) in production, are things that capital has already made operative. In this there is another issue that women have long debated and that in my view could correct from a theoretical standpoint this analysis of immaterial production: this is the issue of the body. This is not to say: ‘we have a body that we have to take care of because we have to be healthy, we are not happy with our body and so on’. Capital has already talked about this. Our argument is rather that production is certainly immaterial, but this cannot come into reality independently of bodies.
The final word goes to Paolo Virno. Reflecting upon the early nineties, when Luogo Comune and Futur antérieur developed different, yet in part complementary, social analyses – analyses dissected with typical aplomb by Ferrari Bravo – he identified certain important limits of certain participants in the early postoperaista project:
Its attention was always directed more to understanding, for better or worse, some guiding lights, rather than truly facing up to the processes of class recomposition, with their ambiguity and character which, far from given, was often blocked.
In a subsequent interview with Borio, Pozzi and Roggero, Virno suggests that since Seattle, there has been a growing ‘representation and self-identification’ of those layers of social labour-power closest to the movements against global capital: ‘mass intellectual labour, linguistic labour, precarious labour’, albeit often in an ‘ethical-symbolic’ sense. Noting that such layers have ‘exploded’ the chain of class figures traditionally identified by operaismo (professional worker, mass worker etc.), he draws us back to:
one of the most interesting questions of the whole workerist tradition, even if it is rarely thematised as such: the form of struggle was the lynchpin [soglia] connecting the class’s technical composition and political composition, it lies at the heart of the various theories of organization. So the problem is how the movement can turn to the terrain of the relations of production and therefore how – on the level of migrations, of intellectual property, of the social working day – it can damage and bring down the adversary.
The book Empire famously presents the contemporary world system as one in which power is decentred – an assertion that has, of late, been subjected to increased questioning. Whatever the truth of the matter, the time has come to examine the various threads stemming from operaismo in a similarly decentred way. Above all, this will mean judging each on its own merits as a contribution to comprehending contemporary global power relations as a whole – not simply those entailing ‘some guiding lights’ – and so in terms of how each such thread can best contribute to the collective project of ‘damag[ing] and bringing down the adversary’.
Alquati, Romano, ‘Sul secondo operaismo politico’, manuscript, n.d., now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Alquati, Romano, ‘Ulteriori note sull’università e il territorio’, in Romano Alquati, Nicola Negri and Andrea Sormano, Università di ceto medio e proletariato intelletuale, Stampatori, Turin, 1977.
Alquati, Romano, Sacre icone, Calusca edizioni, Padua, 1993.
Alquati, Romano, Camminando per realizzare un sogno commune, Velleità Alternative, Turin, 1994.
Alquati, Romano, Lavoro e attività, manifestolibri, Rome, 1997.
Amin, Ash, (ed.) Post-Fordism: a reader, Blackwells, Oxford, 1994.
Aufheben, ‘Review Article – Hotlines: “We have Ways of Making you Talk!”’, Aufheben 12, 2004.
Berardi, Franco, La nefasta utopia di Potere operaio, Castelvecchi, Rome, 1998.
Berardi, Franco, ‘Net Culture, New Media And the Social Body: An Interview with Franco Berardi Bifo’, 2002, http://world-information.org/wio/readme/992006691/1039009255
Bifo et al., ‘L’autonomie sociale au-delà de l’autonomie’, in Marie-Blanche Tahon & André Corten (eds.), L’Italie: le philosophe et le gendarme, Montréal, vlb éditeur, 1986.
Bologna, Sergio, ‘Il dibattito sull’“altro” movimento operaio in Germania’, in Maria Grazia Meriggi (ed.), Il caso Karl-Heinz Roth: Discussione sull’”altro” movimento operaio, Edizioni aut aut, Milan, 1978.
Bologna, Sergio, ‘Memoria operaia e rifiuto della memoria operaia’, in Cesare Bermani & Franco Coggiola, (eds.), Memoria operaia e nuova composizione di classe, Magioli, Milan, 1986.
Bologna, Sergio, et al., ‘Tangentopoli e ricchezza sociale’, Klinamen 4, June, 1993.
Bologna, Sergio, ‘A Review of Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism by Steve Wright’, Strategies: Journal of Theory, Culture & Politics 16(2), November, 2003.
Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, (eds.), Gli operaisti, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2005.
Bove, Adrianna & Erik Empson, ‘The Dark Side of the Multitude’, paper presented at the Dark Markets conference, Vienna, October, 2002, http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcmultitude1.htm
Brancaccio, Francesco et al., Precariopoli: Parole e pratiche delle nuove lotte sul lavoro, manifestolibri, Rome, 2005.
Brophy, Enda, ‘Italian Operaismo Face to Face: A Report on the “Operaismo a Convegno” Conference, 1-2 June 2002, Rialto Occupato, Rome, Italy’, Historical Materialism, 12(1), 2004.
Cevro-Vukovic, Emina, Vivere a sinistra, Arcana Editrice, Rome, 1976.
Cleaver, Harry, Reading Capital Politically, Second Edition, Anti/Theses, Leeds, 2001.
Cuccomarino, Carlo, et al., ‘Dibattito all’università di Cosenza’, 7 March, 2002, http://deriveapprodi.org/dibattiti/dibattitioperaismo4.htm
Dalla Costa, Maria Rosa, ‘The door to the garden’, 2002, http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpdallacosta1.htm
Dalmaviva, Mario, ‘Intervista 19 febbraio 2001’, now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
De Angelis, Massimo, ‘An Interview with Harry Cleaver’, 1993, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/cleaver.html.
De Angelis, Massimo, ‘Intervista 1 luglio 2001’, now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Del Re, Alisa, ‘Interview with Alisa Del Re – 26th July 2000’, 2000, http://www.generation-online.org/t/alisadelre.htm
Dyer-Witheford, Nick, Cyber-Marx, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1999.
Dyer-Witheford, Nick, ‘Cyber-Negri: General Intellect and Inmaterial Labor’, in Timothy Murphy & Abdul-Karim Mustapha (eds.), The Philosophy of Antonio Negri: Resistance in Practice, Pluto Press, London, 2005.
Evangelista, Valerio, ‘Intervista 18 marzo 2000’, now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Ferrari Bravo, Luciano (ed.), Imperialismo e classe operaia multinazionale, Feltrinelli, Milan, 1975.
Ferrari Bravo, Luciano, ‘Lavoro e Politico’, DeriveApprodi 4, 1996, now in Ferrari Bravo, Luciano, Dal fordismo alla globalizzazione, manifestolibri, Rome, 2001.
Fumagalli, Andrea, ‘Dieci tesi sul reddito di cittadinanza’, 1998, http://www.ecn.org/andrea.fumagalli/10tesi.htm
Gambino, Ferruccio, ‘Only Connect’, in Paul Buhle (ed.), C.L.R. James: His Life and Work, Allison & Busby, London, 1986.
Gambino, Ferruccio, ‘A Critique of the Fordism of the Regulation School’, Common Sense 19, June, 1996, http://www.wildcat-www.de/en/zirkular/28/z28e_gam.htm
Gambino, Ferruccio, ‘Intervista 10 giugno 2001’, now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Gambino, Ferruccio et al., ‘Dibattito all’università di Padova, 14 maggio 2002’, manuscript, 2002.
Hardt, Michael & Antonio Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
Hardt, Michael & Antonio Negri, Multitude, Penguin Press, New York, 2004.
Karlsruher Stadzeitung, ‘35 ore e precarizzazione’, Collegamenti/Wobbly 11-12, Winter, 1984.
Kolinko, Hotlines, 2002, http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/kolinko/lebuk/e_lebuk.htm
Linebaugh, Peter, ‘Gone to Glory: John Merrington’, Capital & Class 62, Summer, 1997.
Lotringer, Sylvere, & Christian Marazzi, ‘The Return of Politics’, Semiotext(e), 3(3), 1980.
Marazzi, Christian, Il posto dei calzini, Edizioni Casagrande, Bellinzona, 1994.
Marazzi, Christian, Capitale e linguaggio, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Mattera, Phillip, Off the Books, Pluto Press, London, 1985.
Mezzadra, Sandro, ‘Intervista 3 aprile 2001’, now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Mezzadra, Sandro, ‘Taking Care: Migration and the Political Economy of Affective Labor’, paper presented to the Centre for the Study of Invention and Social Process, Goldsmiths College, University of London, 16 March, 2005.
Mitropoulos, Angela, ‘Precari-us?’, Mute 2005, http://www.metamute.org/en/Precari-us
Moroni, Primo, ‘Un certo uso sociale del spazio urbano’, in Consorzio Aaster et al., Centri sociali: geografie del desiderio, Milan: ShaKe, Milan, 1996.
Moroni, Primo, ‘Linee essenziali della nascita e dello sviluppo dell’area estrasistematica dell’autonomia di classe’, reproduced in DeriveApprodi 16, Summer, 1998.
Moulier Boutang, Yann, ‘Intervista 7 luglio 2001’, now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Negri, Antonio, ‘Erkenntnistheorie: elogio dell’assenza di memoria’, Metropoli 5, June, 1981.
Negri, Antonio, Time for Revolution, Continuum, London, 2003.
Negri, Antonio, ‘Postface to the Complete Text of the Journal Futur
antérieur (1989-98)’,2005, http://slash.autonomedia.org/print.pl?sid=04/03/24/1429238
Neill, Monty et al., ‘Toward the New Commons: Working Class Strategies and the Zapatistas’, 1996, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/mngcjm.html
Neilson, Brett, & Sandro Mezzadra, ‘Né qui, né altrove — Migration, Detention, Desertion: A Dialogue’, Borderlands, 2(1), 2003, http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol2no1_2003/mezzadra_neilson.html
Ortoleva, Peppino, ‘Classe operaia e potere politico in USA (1860-1920)’, Primo Maggio 3-4, September, 1974.
Preve, Costanzo, La teoria in pezzi. La dissoluzione del paradigma operaista in Italia (1976-1983), Dedalo, Bari, 1984.
Revelli, Marco, Lavorare in FIAT, Garzanti, Milan, 1989.
Roth, Karl Heinz, L’altro movimento operaio, Feltrinelli, Milan, 1976.
Scarinzi, Cosimo, ‘Milano: vivere da precari’, Primo Maggio 18, Autumn-Winter 1982-3.
Scarinzi, Cosimo, ‘Da precari di settore a precari sociali’, Collegamenti/Wobbly 10, Autumn, 1983.
Serafini, Alessandro et al., L’operaio multinazionale in Europa, Feltrinelli, Milan, 1974.
Silver, Beverly, Forces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization since 1870, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
Soriano, G., ‘I sindacati e loro crisi’, Collegamenti 31, Autumn 1992.
TPTG, TPTG’s Conversation with George Caffentzis, TPTG, Athens, 2001, http://libcom.org/library/interview-george-caffentzis
Tajani, Cristina, & Gigi Roggero, ‘Bibliografia minima ragionata sulle trasformazioni del lavoro’, in Brancaccio, Francesco et al., Precariopoli: Parole e pratiche delle nuove lotte sul lavoro, manifestolibri, Rome, 2005.
Tripodi, Pino (ed.), Il sapere delle lotte, Spray edizioni, Milan, 1996.
Virno, Paolo, ‘Intervista 21 aprile 2001’, now in the CD-ROM accompanying Borio, Guido, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, Futuro anteriore. Dai “Quaderni Rossi” ai movimenti globali: ricchezze e limiti dell’operaismo italiano, DeriveApprodi, Rome, 2002.
Virno, Paolo, A Grammar of the Multitude, Semiotext(e), New York, 2004.
Wildcat, ‘Open Letter to John Holloway’, Wildcat-Zirkular 39, September 1997, http://www.wildcat-www.de/en/zirkular/39/z39e_hol.htm
Wright, Chris, ‘Tendency Map’, n.d., http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-marxist-tendency-map and http://libcom.org/library/files/Tendency_Map.jpg?PHPSESSID=becc2a19624e72f52b7b64cb78571b04
Figure 1: Chris Wright’s ‘Tendency Map’
Figure 2: Moroni’s ‘Essential lines in the birth and development of the extra-systemic area of class autonomy’
Figure 3: Moroni’s ‘Essential lines in the birth and development of the extra-systemic area of class autonomy’
Figure 4: ‘Some key concepts in social subjectivity, 1976-2006’
Figure 5: ‘A broader view of some key concepts in social subjectivity, 1967-2006’
 Costanzo Preve, 1984.
 Valerio Evangelista, 2000, p.18.
 Enda Brophy, 2004, p. 297.
 See for example, Sylvere Lotringer & Christian Marazzi, 1980, and many of the interviews conducted for Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, .
 Franco Berardi, 1998, pp. 147-53.
 Massimo De Angelis, 1993.
 Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, 2005, pp. 34-5.
 Sergio Bologna, 1986, pp. 461-2.
 Franco Berardi, 1998, pp. 118-22.
 Sergio Bologna, 1978, pp. 29, 39.
 Yann Moulier Boutang, 2001, p. 7.
 Mario Tronti, 1971, p.12.
 Antonio Negri, 1981, p. 52.
 Peppino Ortoleva, 1975, p. 52.
 Sergio Bologna, 2003, p. 104.
 Enda Brophy, 2004, p. 279.
 Chris Wright, n.d.
 In Cevro-Vukovic, 1976, p. 33.
 Primo Moroni, 1996.
 Sandro Mezzadra, 2001, p. 7.
 Sandro Mezzadra, 2001, p.7. Two typical examples of such seminars are Sergio Bologna et al., 1993, and Pino Tripodi (ed.), 1996.
 Marco Revelli, 1989.
 On Bianchini, see Lauso Zagato’s interview in Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, , p. 334. On the ongoing struggles of the mass worker within the world system, see Beverly Silver, 2003.
 For a recent consideration of the continued strategic importance of such workers, see Beverly Silver, 2003.
 See, for example, the preface to the second edition of Sergio Bologna, 1996.
 In Ferruccio Gambino et al., 2002, p. 5.
 There is an enormous amount of literature relevant to this topic. For one overview of the broader issues as they stood in the early nineties, see G. Soriano, 1992.
 Paolo Virno, 2004, Part 4.
 See Cosimo Scarinzi 1982-3, 1983.
 Seethe work of Andrea Fumagalli concerning guaranteed income – e.g Fumagalli, 1998.
 See, for example, the article by a predecessor of Wildcat – Karlsruher Stadzeitung, 1984.
 Wildcat, 1997.
 Phillip Mattera, 1985, p. 129; Bologna’s comments can be found in Bifo et al., 1986, pp. 227-8.
 Kolinko, 2002.
 See Aufheben, 2004.
 Apart from a number of articles in Posse, see also Francesco Brancaccio, et al., 2005.
 Angela Mitropoulos, 2005.
 See for example Alessandro Serafini et al., 1974; Luciano Ferrari Bravo (ed.), 1975; Karl Heinz Roth, 1976.
 Yann Moulier Boutang, 2001, p. 3. He adds: ‘to my mind, even if it is naturally easy to revise history, still everything that followed, this radicalisation of the white working class, including the CUBs, then the Brigate Rosse and the other armed groups, happened, when the invisible party was no longer such within the class composition, because it had already dissolved into various situations, and the bosses had a plan to decompose everything completely, to defeat it. I don’t remember how many immigrant workers there were at the time, but certainly in the FIAT defeat of ’80, they were already an important variable in the territory. It’s a shame, because we truly could have organised things and changed this dynamic a bit’.
 See for example Ferruccio Gambino, 2003; Devi Sachetto, 2004.
 Sandro Mezzadra, 2001, p. 11.
 Sandro Mezzadra, 2005, p. 2. See also Brett Neilson & Sandro Mezzadra, 2003, and
 For example, see Romano Alquati, 1994.
 Romano Alquati, 1997, pp. 89, 86.
 Romano Alquati, n.d., p. 14.
 Franco Berardi, 1998, p. 189.
 Franco Berardi, 2002.
 Paolo Virno, 2004; Arianna Bove & Erik Empson, 2002.
 Nick Dyer-Witheford, 2005.
 Maria Rosa Dalla Costa, 2002.
 Alongside the efforts of Midnight Notes, we can also note the work carried out since the late seventies by Harry Cleaver, covering a range of topics from the politics of debt to engagement with the Zapatistas. A useful overview can be found in the preface to the second edition of his Reading Capital Politically – Harry Cleaver, 2000.
 In TPTG, 2001.
 See ‘Part V. Class Composition and Developing a New Working Class Strategy’, in Monty Neill et al., 1996.
 Ferruccio Gambino, 1986, p. 198.
 See Harry Cleaver, 2001; Peter Linebaugh, 1997; Sergio Bologna, 2003; Ferruccio Gambino, 2001.
 See Antonio Negri, 2005. More recently, the website of the French-language publication Multitudes has hosted a variety of materials that continue and extend some of the work of Futur antérieur, while making increasing numbers of texts available in English.
 Alisa Del Re, 2000.
 Massimo De Angelis, 2001, p. 4.
 Nick Dyer-Witheford, 1999, Chapter 9.
 See Christian Marazzi, 1994, and Christian Marazzi, 2002.
 Amongst other things, Bove is a mainstay of the excellent 'generation online' website/archive', Murphy has introduced a number of Negri's texts into English, Palano and Toscano have written some important commentaries on operaismo and postoperaismo, while Mandarini's most recent project has been the English edition of Antonio Negri, 2003..
 In terms of the first groups, Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, 2002, p. 40, speak of ‘that restricted number of subjects with an effective autonomy of research and capacity for political proposition’. Elsewhere Borio has spoken more bluntly of ‘a few people who could be counted on the fingers of one hand’ – see Carlo Cuccomarino et al., 2002.
 Romano Alquati, 1993, p. 1.
 Paolo Virno, 2004, pp. 110-1.
 Romano Alquati 1997, p. 174.
 Romano Alquati 1977, p. 45.
 See the essays collected in Ash Amin (ed.), 2001.
 Cristina Tajani & Gigi Roggero, 2005, pp. 153-4, have provided a very useful summary of what, in the postoperaista debate, is seen as the key features of the transition to postfordism:
·‘the passage from a productive system based upon large vertically integrated production units to a territorially diffuse system of production, with reticularly articulated small units;
·‘the growing weight of formally self-employed and independent labour, with the accentuation of various forms of flexibility, parallel to the progressive reduction of employed labour and growing casualisation of jobs;
·‘the more general tendency towards the multiplication of employment regimes, even within situations of analogous work or equivalent job roles;
·‘the increased requirement in the production process (including within large factories) for cognitive, relational, linguistic, communicative and other faculties (including those called ‘immaterial’);
·‘the refurbished importance of the IT revolution, as instrument and paradigm of networked production;
·‘the structural permanence of quotients of employed labour deployed in the lowliest, most degrading jobs, often undertaken by male and female migrant workers in particularly oppressive conditions.’
 Ferruccio Gambino, 1996.
 Mario Dalmaviva, 2000, p. 12.
 Of the 58 individuals interviewed for Futuro Anteriore, five were women – probably a reasonable reflection of gender balance within operaismo’s trajectory (although it must be said that not all of those interviewed, male or female, considered themselves to have been operaisti).
 Alisa Del Re, 2000.
 See Luciano Ferrari Bravo, 1996.
 Paolo Virno, 2001, p. 16.
 In Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, , p. 323. Unlike most other interviews in that book, this passage seems additional to the transcripts collected in the CD-ROM accompanying Guido Borio, Francesca Pozzi & Gigi Roggero, 2002.
 Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri 2000, p. 12.