Kolinko - Discussion paper on class composition

8/10/2019 Kolinko - Discussion paper on class composition

1/11

kolinko | 4/2001

Class Composition

[deutsch][franais][espaol][back]

IntroductionClass composition is a central notion in our search for thepossibility of revolution. We are looking for a force that is able tochange 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 processof liberation actually take place? The perception of the Marxist-Leninists is different fromour experiences: the "working class" is neither a united object nor do we see the possibilitythat it just needs a political party to overcome the class divisions and give a revolutionarydirection to workers' struggles. The analysis of class composition can help us understandwhat 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 deeperdiscussion about our "role as revolutionaries" and our political strategies: where is a deepercoherence of the "workers' net" of CRO in Bologna, the "workers' inquiry" of Kolinko inthe Ruhr Area, the interventions in Brighton, the newspaper project of Folkmakt etc.?About which questions do we have different political assessments and what possibilities forfurther co-operation exist?We want to start with some short points on the relationship between political practice andthe 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 classIn the discussion about the "role of revolutionaries" different political currents (Leninism,Syndicalism, Council-Communism etc.) are usually just "compared" to each other. We haveto analyse how different notions of the role of revolutionaries and their organisation derivesfrom different comprehensions of class and from a specific historical relation to classstruggle.

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 materialprocess of exploitation/work is neglected. This formal notion of capital leads to a formalnotion of working-class: a mass of exploited individuals who have to sell theirlabour-power due to their "non-possession" of the means of production. From this similarnotion of working-class different political conclusions are drawn: the Leninists emphasisethe need for a political party that is able to gather the masses whose only coherence is theformal similarity of non-possessing. The party has to give a strategical direction to thespontaneous struggles of the exploited. The Council-Communists just notice that the massof exploited create their own forms of organization in struggle. They neglect the question ofstrategy and see their main task as distributing the experiences of self-organization among

the workers.

kolinko-class composition http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/kolinko/engl/e_klazu.htm

1 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


2/11

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 thepossibility of self- emancipation that workers can develop. As "non-possessors" of means ofproduction their power can not be explained. The mere fact that they are all exploited doesnot 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 tocapital: they are working together in the process of production and they are part of thesocial 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 thisrelation can workers' struggles develop their power. The isolation of workers in singlecompanies, branches etc. cannot be overcome "artificially" by taking the similarity of "allbeing exploited" as the foundation for an organization. This attempt generally ends up inanother "rank-and-file" union: there will always be the need for an outside institution if thecoherence 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 ofleadership: is the external coherence built up by the unions or the communist party? Thecriticism of Leninism usually reduces itself to questioning just the form of this externalcoherence: it is "undemocratic", not built by the workers themselves etc. The left criticsvery rarely analyse the process of production in terms of the foundation for the coherence ofworkers' struggle. Therefore they tend to just follow the spontaneity of struggles withoutrealizing or supporting a strategical direction within this. Why do different political currentsdevelop 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 undemocraticcharacter of the Leninist Party. We think that the more profound critique on Leninismconsists of the analysis that the Bolshevik form of party emerged from the specific materialconditions in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century. An agrarian society withdispersed and isolated peasant villages, a high rate of ill iteration and just few zones ofindustrialization could only be politically unified by an external mass-organization.Therefore the most profound critique of the Council Communist is that this kind oforganization was not useful and appropriate in their historical situation: in the industrializedregions 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 revolutionaryperiod 1918-23 was the political answer of the working class. Today just a few critics ofLeninism reflect this "material core". The critique usually remains on a political level, nottouching the material roots of Leninism and other currents. Today we have to put thecritique on it's feet again by analysing the changes in the organization of exploitation and ofworkers' 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


2 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


3/11

exploitation. Workers' struggles take different forms (in the past, in different regions orsectors etc.), because the concrete labour-process and therefore the material form ofexploitation differs. The mode of production and the position within the social process ofproduction determines the form and possibilities of a struggle: truck-drivers' struggles differfrom those of building-workers, strikes in factories producing for the world-market havedifferent 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 classcomposition:* 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 oflabour in different departments, detachment from "administration" and production, use ofspecial 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 oftheir self-organization and use the means of production as means of struggle. We are stilldiscussing 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 soonas workers of a single company or branch organize their struggle out of the conditions ofproduction. The other position takes as a pre-condition for a new "political classcomposition" a wave of workers' struggles that are unified into a class movement bystruggles in central parts of the social production process (for example in the 60s/70s thefocus 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 theways, contents and perspectives of struggles:

a) immediate organization

Whether workers try to find individual or collective solutions for their problems mainlydepends on the way they have to relate to each other in the daily work-process. When workis 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 labourcreates a mutual dependence between workers the need for a collective action is moreobvious. The potential for self-organization furthermore depends on the question of whetherthe 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 differentcircumstances, for instance if workers are concentrating on points of significant importancefor the process of production and accumulation; if the struggle takes place in a specificeconomic situation (for instance boom, lots of orders) or under a particular composition ofcapital (for instance high standard of machinery requires production around the clock) thatincreases the dependence on the work-force.

c) political content

"Political consciousness", the consciousness to confront capital as a class, can not bebrought 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 andtheir relation to the means of production. The specific capitalist mode of production is


3 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


4/11

mass-production based on division of labour and machinery. Whether workers graspexploitation just from a "unionist" point of view as an unfair distribution of the product orfrom 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 orwrong consciousness" as the Leninists would claim, but the question of whether theirexploitation 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 contentof 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 workerwho is hired together with a hundred other workers and who has to do the same work ismore likely to notice that the "individual contracts" are just a fake than for example ahandicraft 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 thefact 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 aspecialized worker. The first will actually experience work as abstract and will be less likelyto 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 thecomposition of work-force on the shop-floor. We could state that foremen, team-leaders ormanagers are also "wage- labourers" and therefore exploited, but nearly every struggle hasto enforce itself against these "little bosses". The (hierarchical) division of labour of thesocial production process is the foundation for racist and sexist divisions within the workingclass. So on the one hand capital divides workers, but on the other hand it brings togetherworkers of every skin-colour, gender, nationality etc. in the process of production. Whetherdivisions between workers are questioned or fortified is generally decided in struggles.Factories, specific sectors etc. with a "colourful" composition are especially decisive in thisprocess.

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 ofthe machines, and who notices that despite the technological progress his/her situation doesnot improve, is more likely to attack capital as a contradictory mode of production. Workersof 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 theproducts 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 productionprocess and at a stage of the product which has no use-value yet. A lot of workers are not


4 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


5/11

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 theworkers' struggle.It remains an open question for us how far struggles of "handicrafts", agricultural workersand other proletarians who do not work under "industrial" conditions can develop ananti-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 externalmediation (like the so-called "Anti-Globalisation"-Movement, "Peoples Global Action", the"Zapatistas" and other organisations who try to link different "social movements")

d) expansion

Whether struggles can expand themselves also depends on "spontaneity", the socialsituation and mere chance. For a political strategy it is important to analyse the materialfoundation of an expansion: what is the relationship between a single struggle and the socialproduction? Single companies are, to a greater or lesser extent, connected to the socialdivision of labour: international production chains, transport, connections to "scientific

work" in universities, connection to the "service sector" and distribution. So there aredifferent ways a struggle can effect society, for instance a strike the daily life of a mass ofworkers. Do workers who are not immediately engaged in a strike notice it's outcomes asproducers, for instance because they can not do their work due to missing parts? Do theynotice it as consumers, for instance because they miss their daily newspaper in themorning? For the expansion of a struggle it is important that other workers are not justinformed through the media, but that it effects their daily work/life. These effects show thesocial dimension of production today and so they can destroy the notion of "isolatedwork-places". Also the social skills that workers acquire in their existence as a work-forceinfluences their potential to break through the isolation of their struggle by their ownactivity: for instance the knowledge of how to organize and improvise in the chaos of theproduction process, the skills to use means of communication, the experiences andconnections of immigrated workers etc.

e) political generalization

In the history of class struggle there has never occurred a "mass uprising", a simultaneousuprising of the majority. It has always been small sections of the proletariat (of a singlefactory, branch, region etc.) which start the trouble, which push it forward or which becomethe symbol or focus of a class movement. These "cores" are neither founded on "higherconsciousness" nor do they emerge by chance. In the 60s/70s it was mainly the workers inthe 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 camefrom the different poor regions to the metropolis. It generalized the experience of workersby technology and work-organization on an international level. It was the centre of aninternational division of labour with productive connection to nearly every sector. Thoughthe product was a symbol of an increasing wealth, the only chance to get a piece of it wasby subjecting oneself to the command of the factory.In other times and places there have been particular regions which became the centre of amovement. That was less due to "tradition" than to their significance in the social process ofproduction, for instance port- towns, mining regions. In the centres of development theconnection 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


5 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


6/11


7/11

control. The struggles of the 60/70s expressed the increasing "scientification" of theproduction, the increasing terror of machinery and alienation from work and product. Thedistinction of "workers' struggle" and other social movements dissolved more and more dueto the fact that the whole society (schools, university, town infrastructure) was closerconnected 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 organizenew forms of strikes; squatted factories and universities became central meeting points, the"new science" and means of communication were developed by the movement etc. Bydoing this the movement itself became more "productive" and creative and spread thedeveloped "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 capitalismcreates and connects parts of development and underdevelopment as a reaction to the classcontradiction, which explains the dynamic character of the system. Within hi-tech factoriesthere exist departments of different "technological" levels. These factories themselves areconnected 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 thedivisions and unevenness of class struggle. Workers' struggles which can generalizethemselves along the lines of "uneven development" lead to the conditions of productionbecoming more similar. The struggles of workers in automobile factories in the 60s-80s hadthe result that the conditions in the main factories became similar worldwide includingformer "zones of underdevelopment" (Mexico, Brazil etc.): on the level of technology andalso for the workers (similar relation between wage and product). Capital reacts to the"political class composition" (the generalization of class struggle) with a "technicalre-composition", with the reproduction of uneven development on a higher level: regionsare "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 pointsfor the generalization of future class movements. So the inner coherence of the comingclass movements is anticipated. Their strategy will not grow detached in the heads ofrevolutionaries, but lies within the process of the material development (of division oflabour, 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 ageneral view and interpretation of the things that actually happen. The power, thepossibilities of self-organization, of expansion and generalization are set by conditions ofproduction. The task of revolutionaries is to show the coherence between the materialconditions and practice and the perspective of struggles. The class movement will takeplace 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. Theanalysis of the material foundation of workers' struggle also determines where we should


7 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


8/11

intervene. It is not sufficient just to follow the "spontaneous" patterns of struggles and todocument them. We have to look for the points which can be of strategical significance forthe future. These areas do not need to be the "most developed" or the "centres ofaccumulation". Often the sectors that connect different levels of development (transportbetween different factories, "information work" between production and distribution) aresignificant 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

a) questionsb) Does a coherence of the form of production and forms of struggle exist? What are thedifferences, for instance of factories and call centres and what does this mean for possibleconflicts?c) Is the "immediate process of production" the central sphere of class struggle? What'sabout 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 thedanger (for instance reduced view on class struggle)f) Where are the tendencies for a "new political class composition"? Where are the possiblespots 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 discussion2) Critique on the discussion itself3) References to articles about class composition

1) Summary

We started with a presentation of the short version of the paper, because not everybody hadread the paper in the "materials". The following discussion developed freely, it did not referto 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 historicalsituation 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 categoriesof workers? Does the notion over-estimate the influence of "objective conditions" andunder-estimate the impact of spontaneity, experience and exemplariness of actual strugglesof workers?

c) Do we have to look for a "central subject" or a central sector which plays an importantrole 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 revolutionariesand the actual conditions of exploitation and therefore to a sociological notion and relationto class struggle?

Question a)

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:

First:The notion of class composition has its origin in a specific historical situation. It was


8 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


9/11

introduced in the Marxist discussion in Italy in the early 60s. The situation at that time wasnot 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 centralsectors 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 thedevelopment of the material conditions within these sectors, and the re-emergence of

workers' power. Therefore, the notion is not applicable to other historical situations withouttaking 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 accumulationanymore; therefore the notion of class composition has lost its main foundation. (referencesto the article: "Massenarbeiter und gesellschaftlicher Arbeiter" by Battagia)

Second:The notion of class composition first of all describes a specific approach: to analyse thepotentials 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 beenwritten 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 discussionsabout 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 generatinga new central sector which connects different regions and branches of industries is indeed amajor problem. The problem is not that we can not use our specific terms anymore, but thatbecause of the lack of this central sector the working class can not find common points ofreferences and therefore can not generalize its struggles.

question b)

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 developand where we can take part in discussion and activities against exploitation. In this notionwe see ourselves as a part of class subjectivity.3. As an approach to understand the dialectic relation between the development of capitaland class subjectivity. The notion of class composition is referring to Marx' notion of theorganic composition of capital. This term describes the coherence between the

accumulation of dead labour (machinery) in relation to labour-power. This relation on onehand expresses the command of capital over the workers, but on the other hand alsocontains the communist tendency within capitalism (potentials to reduce necessary sociallabour-time). Class composition describes the coherence between this objective dynamic ofcapitalism and workers' subjectivity.The following discussion more or less circled around the question: What is the relationbetween the objective conditions and the subjectivity of workers?

Classification: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 conditionsthey arise from. On the other hand we have to face the problem that workers actually are


9 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


10/11

classified and put into specific categories by the capitalist production process. Theseclassifications (e.g. to be a skilled female worker in a small work-shop for global gardengnome production) can just be destroyed "from within". The analysis of the specificconditions of workers should not be static. Our starting-points are the specific conditions ina specific sphere of exploitation, we have to try to relate them to the global classcontradiction. 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 areconfronting the "organic composition" of capital and socialisation of work in many differentways (e.g. Indian software companies next to textile sweat-shops). We have to face andanalyse 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 howworkers will struggle. It was emphasised that we rather have to analyse the actual strugglesgoing on. Also struggles in "less important" spheres of exploitation (garden gnomeproduction) 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 isdetermined. 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 materialfoundation 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 withinexploitation.

question c)

It was criticised that the notion of class composition is used to identify a central subjectwithin class struggle (thereby filtering out the rest). In contrary, we have to see theimportance of every "proletarian experience" not just at the work-place, but also in thesphere of reproduction, the special experience as (work-)immigrants etc. The analysis ofclass 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 askedourselves whether we are all searching for special conditions within exploitation, becausewe assess their specific political importance. Also the CRO, which is insisting on theimmediate experience of every worker, emphasises the importance of the industrial mode ofproduction, scientific work-organisation etc. We agreed that if there is a choice, we wouldrather work or intervene in a big factory than in a two person fish and chip shop.

question d)

We discussed the question as to which relation between revolutionaries and class derivesfrom the notion of class composition. The analysis of class composition often was a mereremedy for party and union bureaucrats to gain more influence for their organisations withinconflicts, despite their actual detachment from the shop-floor. The analysis can only beachieved 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 classcomposition must happen out of the concrete practice. It should not be that the analysisproceeds 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-incidentallyare aware of. We should be able to understand the general and specific tendencies within


10 of 11 24/12/14 12:52


11/11

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 butabout discussing the relation between experience/intervention within exploitation and theanalysis of specific developments in certain areas of the social production process. Therebywe 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 compositionwith 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 justused as ideological labels. Therefore we did not discuss our own questions about the recentsituation in class struggle and our own way to relate to this situation.

3) References

"Massenarbeiter und gesellschaftlicher Arbeiter - einige Bemerkungen ber die "neueKlassenzusammensetzung" - Roberto Battaggia, wildcat-Zirkular Nr.36/37 bzw. PrimoMaggio Nr.14 (Winter 1980/81)

"Zusammensetzung der Arbeiterklasse und Organisationsfrage" - Sergio Bologna,Internationale Marxistische Diskussion 35, Merve Verlag Berlin "Composizione di classe eteoria del partito alle origine del movimento consiliare" - Operai e Stato, Milano 1972

"Organische Zusammensetzung des Kapitals und Arbeitskraft bei Olivetti" - RomanoAlquati, TheKla5 "Composizioni del capitale e forza-lavoro alla Olivetti" - Quaderni Rossinr. 2, 3

"The Militant Proletariat" - Austin Lewis, Chicago 1911 dtsch. bersetzung "Das militanteProletariat" - Austin Lewis, in: Karlsruher Stadtzeitung(wildcat) (Hrsg.): Die Wobblies,Band 2, Karlsruhe 1984

"Forcing the Lock? The Problem of Class Composition in Italian Workerism" - SteveWright, Monash Phil.Diss. 1988

"Der Kommunismus" - Jean Barrot, Weltcommune, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift derkommunistischen Bewegung, 1/94

[[email protected]]------[pgp-key kolinko]

kolinko | 4/2001 [top]


11 of 11 24/12/14 12:52

Kolinko - Discussion paper on class composition

Documents

Transcript of Kolinko - Discussion paper on class composition