kolinko | 4/2001|
Class composition is a central notion in our search for the possibility of revolution. We are looking for a force that is able to change society from the bottom up. It is correct, however general, to say that only the exploited are able to overthrow exploitation, but how does this process of liberation actually take place? The perception of the Marxist-Leninists is different from our experiences: the "working class" is neither a united object nor do we see the possibility that it just needs a political party to overcome the class divisions and give a revolutionary direction to workers' struggles. The analysis of class composition can help us understand what is determining workers' struggles, how they can turn into a class movement and how we can play an active part in this process.
The work-shop on class composition can therefore be the starting-point for a deeper discussion about our "role as revolutionaries" and our political strategies: where is a deeper coherence of the "workers' net" of CRO in Bologna, the "workers' inquiry" of Kolinko in the Ruhr Area, the interventions in Brighton, the newspaper project of Folkmakt etc.? About which questions do we have different political assessments and what possibilities for further co-operation exist?
We want to start with some short points on the relationship between political practice and the notion of class.
1. The notion of the "role of revolutionaries" has its basis in a specific notion of class and in a specific relation to class
In the discussion about the "role of revolutionaries" different political currents (Leninism, Syndicalism, Council-Communism etc.) are usually just "compared" to each other. We have to analyse how different notions of the role of revolutionaries and their organisation derives from different comprehensions of class and from a specific historical relation to class struggle.
2. The different communist currents (Leninism, Council-Communism etc.) have a formal notion of class in common
In general the different currents grasp "capital" as just a formal relation of exploitation: the surplus labour-time is appropriated by private hands or by the state. The actual material process of exploitation/work is neglected. This formal notion of capital leads to a formal notion of working-class: a mass of exploited individuals who have to sell their labour-power due to their "non-possession" of the means of production. From this similar notion of working-class different political conclusions are drawn: the Leninists emphasise the need for a political party that is able to gather the masses whose only coherence is the formal similarity of non-possessing. The party has to give a strategical direction to the spontaneous struggles of the exploited. The Council-Communists just notice that the mass of exploited create their own forms of organization in struggle. They neglect the question of strategy and see their main task as distributing the experiences of self-organization among the workers.
3. A formal notion of class can neither explain nor support the self-emancipation of the working-class
The formal notion of exploitation (appropriated surplus labour-time) can not reveal the possibility of self- emancipation that workers can develop. As "non-possessors" of means of production their power can not be explained. The mere fact that they are all exploited does not create a real coherence between the individuals. The possibility of self-organization can only be derived from the fact that workers have a practical relation to each other and to capital: they are working together in the process of production and they are part of the social division of labour. As producers they are not just opposing capital as formal "wage-labourers", but in their specific practice they are producing capital. Only arising from this relation can workers' struggles develop their power. The isolation of workers in single companies, branches etc. cannot be overcome "artificially" by taking the similarity of "all being exploited" as the foundation for an organization. This attempt generally ends up in another "rank-and-file" union: there will always be the need for an outside institution if the coherence of the workers is not based on their actual social co- operation, but just on the "formal coherence" of exploited wage-labour. Leninism does not realize this deeper reason for trade-union forms of workers' struggle. It tackles the problem as a mere question of leadership: is the external coherence built up by the unions or the communist party? The criticism of Leninism usually reduces itself to questioning just the form of this external coherence: it is "undemocratic", not built by the workers themselves etc. The left critics very rarely analyse the process of production in terms of the foundation for the coherence of workers' struggle. Therefore they tend to just follow the spontaneity of struggles without realizing or supporting a strategical direction within this. Why do different political currents develop despite their similar notion of class?
4. The reason for the different political notions and practice of Leninism and its left critics are the different material conditions of exploitation and class struggle they had to face
Council-Communists and others mainly criticize the patronizing and undemocratic character of the Leninist Party. We think that the more profound critique on Leninism consists of the analysis that the Bolshevik form of party emerged from the specific material conditions in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century. An agrarian society with dispersed and isolated peasant villages, a high rate of ill iteration and just few zones of industrialization could only be politically unified by an external mass-organization. Therefore the most profound critique of the Council Communist is that this kind of organization was not useful and appropriate in their historical situation: in the industrialized regions of Western Europe during the 1920s. They realized that the factories had already unified the workers and that the creation of workers' councils during the revolutionary period 1918-23 was the political answer of the working class. Today just a few critics of Leninism reflect this "material core". The critique usually remains on a political level, not touching the material roots of Leninism and other currents. Today we have to put the critique on it's feet again by analysing the changes in the organization of exploitation and of workers' struggle. That is the precondition for the development of new political strategies. The notion of class composition can help us with that.
5. The core of the notion of class composition is the thesis that there is a close relation between the form of struggle and the form of production
Workers do not fight together because of the consciousness that "they are all exploited". Struggles of workers arise from concrete work-conditions, from actual situations of exploitation. Workers' struggles take different forms (in the past, in different regions or sectors etc.), because the concrete labour-process and therefore the material form of exploitation differs. The mode of production and the position within the social process of production determines the form and possibilities of a struggle: truck-drivers' struggles differ from those of building-workers, strikes in factories producing for the world-market have different outcomes than strikes in call centres.
In the analysis of the coherence of the mode of production and workers' struggle we distinguish between two different notions of class composition:
* the "technical class composition" describes how capital brings together the work-force; that means the conditions in the immediate process of production (for instance division of labour in different departments, detachment from "administration" and production, use of special machinery) and the form of re-production (living-community, family-structure etc.)
* the "political class composition" describes how workers turn the "technical composition" against capital. They take their coherence as a collective work-force as the starting-point of their self-organization and use the means of production as means of struggle. We are still discussing the question of at which particular point in the process of workers' struggle we can describe it in terms of "political class composition". One position uses the term as soon as workers of a single company or branch organize their struggle out of the conditions of production. The other position takes as a pre-condition for a new "political class composition" a wave of workers' struggles that are unified into a class movement by struggles in central parts of the social production process (for example in the 60s/70s the focus for the class movement were mainly the struggles in automobile factories).
In the following passage we want to sketch how specific forms of production influence the ways, contents and perspectives of struggles:
a) immediate organization
Whether workers try to find individual or collective solutions for their problems mainly depends on the way they have to relate to each other in the daily work-process. When work is mainly based on individual performances and skills (for instance handicraft work) dealing with conflicts on an individual basis is more likely. When the division of labour creates a mutual dependence between workers the need for a collective action is more obvious. The potential for self-organization furthermore depends on the question of whether the work-process enables the workers to communicate with each other (high degree of co- operation, concentration of many workers in one work-place or living-area etc.)
b) immediate power
The foundation for the emergence, the content and prospects of workers' struggles is the question of whether they can gain power against capital. That depends on different circumstances, for instance if workers are concentrating on points of significant importance for the process of production and accumulation; if the struggle takes place in a specific economic situation (for instance boom, lots of orders) or under a particular composition of capital (for instance high standard of machinery requires production around the clock) that increases the dependence on the work-force.
c) political content
"Political consciousness", the consciousness to confront capital as a class, can not be brought to the workers from outside, but can only develop in the struggle itself. This developing consciousness also depends on the practical relation between the producers and their relation to the means of production. The specific capitalist mode of production is mass-production based on division of labour and machinery. Whether workers grasp exploitation just from a "unionist" point of view as an unfair distribution of the product or from a "political" point of view as a social relation of production with it's own laws, depends on the conditions they have to work under. It is not a question of their "right or wrong consciousness" as the Leninists would claim, but the question of whether their exploitation is not only capitalist in a formal way (free wage-labour) but also in its material way (hierarchical division of labour, machine-controlled work-process etc.).
Some examples of how the specific conditions of production influence the political content of workers' struggle - and their relation to capital as a mode of production:
Relation to the wage-form:
In capitalism the wage-relation, appearing as the "individual exchange of money for work", conceals the fact that capital exploits the collective labour-power of the workers. A worker who is hired together with a hundred other workers and who has to do the same work is more likely to notice that the "individual contracts" are just a fake than for example a handicraft worker who "possesses" special skills and therefore special "work to sell".
Relation to work:
Work in capitalism is abstract. The specific tasks one performs are not important, but the fact that work adds surplus labour-time to the product is. A worker who has to do "unskilled" work together with others will have a different relationship to work than a specialized worker. The first will actually experience work as abstract and will be less likely to glorify it and organize within the boundaries of her or his profession.
Relation to other workers:
A formal notion of class does not reach very far. That reveals itself when we look at the composition of work-force on the shop-floor. We could state that foremen, team-leaders or managers are also "wage- labourers" and therefore exploited, but nearly every struggle has to enforce itself against these "little bosses". The (hierarchical) division of labour of the social production process is the foundation for racist and sexist divisions within the working class. So on the one hand capital divides workers, but on the other hand it brings together workers of every skin-colour, gender, nationality etc. in the process of production. Whether divisions between workers are questioned or fortified is generally decided in struggles. Factories, specific sectors etc. with a "colourful" composition are especially decisive in this process.
Relation to the means of production:
Capital is the process and result of a mode of production where the dead labour (machines, work-material) commands the living work-force. A worker who has to obey the rhythm of the machines, and who notices that despite the technological progress his/her situation does not improve, is more likely to attack capital as a contradictory mode of production. Workers of a handcraft work-process who are still "masters" of their tools will more likely see the "boss" as the symbol of exploitation.
Relation to the product:
Workers in spheres of mass-production realize just by working that the quality of the products plays a secondary role and that it is all about quantity. Usually one can not relate to the use-value of the product, because one only sees a small part of the whole production process and at a stage of the product which has no use-value yet. A lot of workers are not working on a material product, but they work under industry- like conditions to perform "services". We have to discuss how this "immateriality" of the products impacts on the workers' struggle.
It remains an open question for us how far struggles of "handicrafts", agricultural workers and other proletarians who do not work under "industrial" conditions can develop an anti-capitalist character. It is a decisive question how these struggles can unite with the struggles of the "industrial proletariat" despite the different conditions and without external mediation (like the so-called "Anti-Globalisation"-Movement, "Peoples Global Action", the "Zapatistas" and other organisations who try to link different "social movements")
Whether struggles can expand themselves also depends on "spontaneity", the social situation and mere chance. For a political strategy it is important to analyse the material foundation of an expansion: what is the relationship between a single struggle and the social production? Single companies are, to a greater or lesser extent, connected to the social division of labour: international production chains, transport, connections to "scientific work" in universities, connection to the "service sector" and distribution. So there are different ways a struggle can effect society, for instance a strike the daily life of a mass of workers. Do workers who are not immediately engaged in a strike notice it's outcomes as producers, for instance because they can not do their work due to missing parts? Do they notice it as consumers, for instance because they miss their daily newspaper in the morning? For the expansion of a struggle it is important that other workers are not just informed through the media, but that it effects their daily work/life. These effects show the social dimension of production today and so they can destroy the notion of "isolated work-places". Also the social skills that workers acquire in their existence as a work-force influences their potential to break through the isolation of their struggle by their own activity: for instance the knowledge of how to organize and improvise in the chaos of the production process, the skills to use means of communication, the experiences and connections of immigrated workers etc.
e) political generalization
In the history of class struggle there has never occurred a "mass uprising", a simultaneous uprising of the majority. It has always been small sections of the proletariat (of a single factory, branch, region etc.) which start the trouble, which push it forward or which become the symbol or focus of a class movement. These "cores" are neither founded on "higher consciousness" nor do they emerge by chance. In the 60s/70s it was mainly the workers in the automobile factories who played this role. The automobile sector was the driving force of the capitalist boom of the previous decades. It absorbed thousands of workers who came from the different poor regions to the metropolis. It generalized the experience of workers by technology and work-organization on an international level. It was the centre of an international division of labour with productive connection to nearly every sector. Though the product was a symbol of an increasing wealth, the only chance to get a piece of it was by subjecting oneself to the command of the factory.
In other times and places there have been particular regions which became the centre of a movement. That was less due to "tradition" than to their significance in the social process of production, for instance port- towns, mining regions. In the centres of development the connection of state and capital can be noticed more easily (planning of infrastructure, labour-market policy, special laws etc.) and the global character of this society is obvious ("foreign investments", migration etc.). We can take towns like Turin as examples for the 50s/60s or the Maquilladoras in South America and "Special Development Zones" in China for today. Also in Europe there a zones of development (for instance on the west border of Poland, the region around Dresden, Piemont).
We think that struggles can expand without these "centres", but often the limitation of strike-movements is due to the fact that the "centres" were not taking part or have been defeated. So the question of "generalization" is not really a question of a "political leadership", but the question of to what extent struggles can socialize themselves along the lines of the social production and hit capital at central points.
f) communist tendencies
There are widely differing notions of "communist tendency". On the one hand the notion that humans have the "human need" for a better society which they express in their struggles against exploitation. On the other hand the orthodox notion that the development of the forces of production will overthrow capitalism and will make communism possible. Leninism and most of the "left communist" currents have a very mechanical notion of the forces of production: development of technology and the extension of the social division of labour due to the driving forces of competition. The foundation of communism is the fact that the increased forces of production are able to reduce individual work-time. They only deal with the fact that the forces of production are in the wrong hands, and ignore the contradiction that the material form of technology (assembly line), of science (Taylorism) and socialization ("globalisation") itself is the foundation of capitalist command over the workers. The dissolution of this contradiction can only take place in a class movement that both changes the material conditions of production and "socializes" the forces of production along with the struggle. Therefore, struggles have to relate to the contradiction of social possibilities (enormous production of material wealth, increased productivity) and reality (drudgery and relative poverty).
A central problem remains the uneven development: the forces of production do not exist solely as a "stage of the forces of production" detached from the workers. The state of technology, the use of science, the degree of social division of labour is different in every sector, region etc. Workers have to face different states of development in the work-process, so in struggles they relate in different ways to the possibilities and contradictions of the social forces of production. In zones of underdevelopment (no or few investments, investments in "labour intensive" exploitation) the "need for communism" will, above all, express itself in the workers attacking poverty and labour-intensive production as a consequence of the capitalist "usage" of the social productivity. In centres of development the contradiction shows itself in the fact that despite the "technological progress" and "abundance", life is still ruled by drudgery and relative poverty. The main question will be from which points of uneven development struggles can socialize/globalise themselves as a new "force of production". Which struggles will be able to express the possibility and hope for a better form of production due to the material conditions (state of technology, science, division of labour etc.) they arise from?
The communist revolution will have to tear down the artificial existence of "development and underdevelopment". We have to ask at which points of social production this process will start and develop power.
It is not easy to find good examples to show the coherence between the "stage of the forces of production" and the "Utopia" of class struggles. The revolts in agrarian societies had less a "social utopia" than the demand to cultivate the land in their own "anarchical" way. The factory-struggles in Western Europe at the beginning of the last century developed the socialist hope of running the factories and therefore the whole society under workers control. The struggles of the 60/70s expressed the increasing "scientification" of the production, the increasing terror of machinery and alienation from work and product. The distinction of "workers' struggle" and other social movements dissolved more and more due to the fact that the whole society (schools, university, town infrastructure) was closer connected to the "actual process of production". The centres of the movement (factories, universities) appropriated much of the "productive possibilities" of a modern society. The increasing division of labour inside the factory and the assembly line were used to organize new forms of strikes; squatted factories and universities became central meeting points, the "new science" and means of communication were developed by the movement etc. By doing this the movement itself became more "productive" and creative and spread the developed "forces of production" into other parts of society. The movement reflected the "developed forces of production" in their demands: not "factory under workers' control", but "automation of the factory" and wealth for everybody...
6. Class composition expresses the inner coherence and the tendency of class struggle
The problems above beg the questions of strategy for class struggle. The strategy can only be derived from the tendencies of capitalism.
In the social process of production capitalism creates and connects parts of development and underdevelopment as a reaction to the class contradiction, which explains the dynamic character of the system. Within hi-tech factories there exist departments of different "technological" levels. These factories themselves are connected to suppliers of different standards of development right down to the "Third- World" sweat-shop. The different levels of development are the material foundations for the divisions and unevenness of class struggle. Workers' struggles which can generalize themselves along the lines of "uneven development" lead to the conditions of production becoming more similar. The struggles of workers in automobile factories in the 60s-80s had the result that the conditions in the main factories became similar worldwide including former "zones of underdevelopment" (Mexico, Brazil etc.): on the level of technology and also for the workers (similar relation between wage and product). Capital reacts to the "political class composition" (the generalization of class struggle) with a "technical re-composition", with the reproduction of uneven development on a higher level: regions are "de-industrialized", in others capital makes the great technological leap forward, old "core" factories are divided into different units of a production chain, the production is "globalised" etc. Capital creates new centres of development which can become new points for the generalization of future class movements. So the inner coherence of the coming class movements is anticipated. Their strategy will not grow detached in the heads of revolutionaries, but lies within the process of the material development (of division of labour, machinery etc.) itself.
7. The task of revolutionaries is the analysis of the capitalist development in order to be able to assess and show the potentials of class struggles
The special role of revolutionaries can not be explained by a "political consciousness" which class struggles could not achieve by themselves. It can only be derived from a general view and interpretation of the things that actually happen. The power, the possibilities of self-organization, of expansion and generalization are set by conditions of production. The task of revolutionaries is to show the coherence between the material conditions and practice and the perspective of struggles. The class movement will take place within the net of development and underdevelopment. Therefore, we have to show the connection of different parts of this net and the political reasons for the inequality. The analysis of the material foundation of workers' struggle also determines where we should intervene. It is not sufficient just to follow the "spontaneous" patterns of struggles and to document them. We have to look for the points which can be of strategical significance for the future. These areas do not need to be the "most developed" or the "centres of accumulation". Often the sectors that connect different levels of development (transport between different factories, "information work" between production and distribution) are significant for a generalization of struggles. For this we need more than just an informal exchange between our groups, we need an organized discussion and intervention.
8. Suggestions for the discussion
b) Does a coherence of the form of production and forms of struggle exist? What are the differences, for instance of factories and call centres and what does this mean for possible conflicts?
c) Is the "immediate process of production" the central sphere of class struggle? What's about other parts of proletarian existence (living area etc.)?
d) Are there "central spots" in a phase of struggle? What are their origins?
e) To which political consequences does the notion of class composition lead, what is the danger (for instance reduced view on class struggle)
f) Where are the tendencies for a "new political class composition"? Where are the possible spots of new workers' power and generalization of struggles?
9. Summary of the discussion about class composition at the meeting in Oberhausen, April 2001
1) Summary of the discussion
2) Critique on the discussion itself
3) References to articles about class composition
We started with a presentation of the short version of the paper, because not everybody had read the paper in the "materials". The following discussion developed freely, it did not refer to the paper in detail.
The discussion can be summarised in four categories of questions:
a) Is the notion of class composition and its emergence strongly tied to a specific historical situation and therefore not as easily applicable to the recent situation?
b) Does the notion of class composition lead us to classify the class into different categories of workers? Does the notion over-estimate the influence of "objective conditions" and under-estimate the impact of spontaneity, experience and exemplariness of actual struggles of workers?
c) Do we have to look for a "central subject" or a central sector which plays an important role in class struggle - or do we have to take into account the experience of every worker?
d) Does the strategy of class composition boil down to a separation between revolutionaries and the actual conditions of exploitation and therefore to a sociological notion and relation to class struggle?
We did not agree on the importance of the discussion about the origin of the actual term 'class composition' for our debate itself. There existed two general lines of discussion:
The notion of class composition has its origin in a specific historical situation. It was introduced in the Marxist discussion in Italy in the early 60s. The situation at that time was not notable for intensive class struggle. There were just few hints of new kinds of conflicts. The notion of class composition is related to the emergence and development of central sectors in this period and in this region: the extension of the metal and automobile sectors. The notion of class composition could help us to understand the coherence between the development of the material conditions within these sectors, and the re-emergence of workers' power. Therefore, the notion is not applicable to other historical situations without taking note of the specific differences. That has often happened during the last few decades (e.g. theory of the 'social worker' or 'immaterial worker'). In the last 20 to 30 years, capitalism has developed in such a way as to not have a central sector of accumulation anymore; therefore the notion of class composition has lost its main foundation. (references to the article: "Massenarbeiter und gesellschaftlicher Arbeiter" by Battagia)
The notion of class composition first of all describes a specific approach: to analyse the potentials of workers' power and subjectivity which arise from the material conditions and developments of the relation of capital. The paper on "class composition" could have been written without using this specific term. Previous to the discussion in Italy in the early 60s, (and so previous to the introduction of the term "class composition"), there were discussions about the coherence of the mode of production and the form that workers' struggles take. (references to the article: "The militant Proletariat" by Lewis). That capital is not generating a new central sector which connects different regions and branches of industries is indeed a major problem. The problem is not that we can not use our specific terms anymore, but that because of the lack of this central sector the working class can not find common points of references and therefore can not generalize its struggles.
We tried to summarize the different usage of the notion of class composition:
1. As an instrument to classify different group of workers, e.g. in the sense of the Marxist-Leninists, who try to label different group of workers due to their supposed different class-consciousness. From this perspective workers can just be seen and treated as objects.
2. As a tool of analysis for our search for conditions where collective action can develop and where we can take part in discussion and activities against exploitation. In this notion we see ourselves as a part of class subjectivity.
3. As an approach to understand the dialectic relation between the development of capital and class subjectivity. The notion of class composition is referring to Marx' notion of the organic composition of capital. This term describes the coherence between the accumulation of dead labour (machinery) in relation to labour-power. This relation on one hand expresses the command of capital over the workers, but on the other hand also contains the communist tendency within capitalism (potentials to reduce necessary social labour-time). Class composition describes the coherence between this objective dynamic of capitalism and workers' subjectivity.
The following discussion more or less circled around the question: What is the relation between the objective conditions and the subjectivity of workers?
There exists the danger to fall back into the mechanical Marxist-Leninists patterns by trying to understand the different potentials of workers' struggle due to of the different conditions they arise from. On the other hand we have to face the problem that workers actually are classified and put into specific categories by the capitalist production process. These classifications (e.g. to be a skilled female worker in a small work-shop for global garden gnome production) can just be destroyed "from within". The analysis of the specific conditions of workers should not be static. Our starting-points are the specific conditions in a specific sphere of exploitation, we have to try to relate them to the global class contradiction. In reference to the third point of the summary of the usage of class composition (the relation of workers to the organic composition of capital): Workers are confronting the "organic composition" of capital and socialisation of work in many different ways (e.g. Indian software companies next to textile sweat-shops). We have to face and analyse the problem of how these differences can be overthrown in class struggle.
Spontaneity and experience:
It was questioned if we can derive from the "objective conditions" whether and how workers will struggle. It was emphasised that we rather have to analyse the actual struggles going on. Also struggles in "less important" spheres of exploitation (garden gnome production) can become a role model and symbol for other workers. We agreed that there is always a spontaneity of class struggle and that it is a good thing that not every action is determined. But it is impossible to take this spontaneity as a foundation of political strategy. Apart from analysing current class struggles we should try to understand the material foundation of the present day crisis of class struggle and the conditions for future conflicts. In order to do that we can just relate to the actual and different conditions within exploitation.
It was criticised that the notion of class composition is used to identify a central subject within class struggle (thereby filtering out the rest). In contrary, we have to see the importance of every "proletarian experience" not just at the work-place, but also in the sphere of reproduction, the special experience as (work-)immigrants etc. The analysis of class composition can only help us to understand specific situations we are confronted with, e.g. why particular divisions between workers exist on a special shop-floor.
We asked ourselves whether we are all searching for special conditions within exploitation, because we assess their specific political importance. Also the CRO, which is insisting on the immediate experience of every worker, emphasises the importance of the industrial mode of production, scientific work-organisation etc. We agreed that if there is a choice, we would rather work or intervene in a big factory than in a two person fish and chip shop.
We discussed the question as to which relation between revolutionaries and class derives from the notion of class composition. The analysis of class composition often was a mere remedy for party and union bureaucrats to gain more influence for their organisations within conflicts, despite their actual detachment from the shop-floor. The analysis can only be achieved by them or other "scientists", because only they have got the time and the means. However, an inquiry can only be revolutionary, if it is performed by workers themselves - self-inquiry. We can support this self-inquiry by leaflets etc. The analysis of class composition must happen out of the concrete practice. It should not be that the analysis proceeds the decision to intervene in a particular struggle.
That was opposed by the comment that revolutionaries can not just move within exploitation by chance or analyse just the struggles that happen and/or we co-incidentally are aware of. We should be able to understand the general and specific tendencies within class struggle.
During this part of the discussion it became obvious that we use two quiet abstract terms: 'class composition' and 'proletarian experience'. It is not about opposing these terms but about discussing the relation between experience/intervention within exploitation and the analysis of specific developments in certain areas of the social production process. Thereby we have to be aware of different conditions we have to face (of groups, of different regions etc.).
2) Critique on the discussion itself
There were two main critiques on the discussion:
a) The discussion was to general. We should have discussed the notion of class composition with regard to the situation in, and inquiry into, call centres or another concrete experience.
b) In the discussion the terms "class composition" and "proletarian experience" were just used as ideological labels. Therefore we did not discuss our own questions about the recent situation in class struggle and our own way to relate to this situation.
"Massenarbeiter und gesellschaftlicher Arbeiter - einige Bemerkungen über die "neue Klassenzusammensetzung" - Roberto Battaggia, wildcat-Zirkular Nr.36/37 bzw. Primo Maggio Nr.14 (Winter 1980/81)
"Zusammensetzung der Arbeiterklasse und Organisationsfrage" - Sergio Bologna, Internationale Marxistische Diskussion 35, Merve Verlag Berlin
"Composizione di classe e teoria del partito alle origine del movimento consiliare" - Operai e Stato, Milano 1972
"Organische Zusammensetzung des Kapitals und Arbeitskraft bei Olivetti" - Romano Alquati, TheKla5
"Composizioni del capitale e forza-lavoro alla Olivetti" - Quaderni Rossi nr. 2, 3
"The Militant Proletariat" - Austin Lewis, Chicago 1911
dtsch. Übersetzung "Das militante Proletariat" - Austin Lewis, in: Karlsruher Stadtzeitung(wildcat) (Hrsg.): Die Wobblies, Band 2, Karlsruhe 1984
"Forcing the Lock? The Problem of Class Composition in
Italian Workerism" - Steve Wright, Monash Phil.Diss. 1988
"Der Kommunismus" - Jean Barrot, Weltcommune, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der kommunistischen Bewegung, 1/94