Leggiamo Tronti

Alex:

A brief summary of the argument:

The new strategy: a total refusal of capitalist society

The old tactics - the union struggle: in the factory, against the boss, blocking of production, the general strike. Block any attempts at stabilizing the contemporary crisis of Italian capitalism (itself brought about by the wage demands of workers, breaking the wages-productivity deal, one of the foundations of Fordism) since currently the working class is too weak at the political level.

Working class strength begins in the factory. In the absence of a strong union struggle, the working class and its organizations are weak on the political terrain and the capitalist class is able to contain and use the working class to shape capitalist development in its favour.

Only after a struggle in the factories, after the working class has built/asserted its strenght within production, can the working class be strong enough on the political terrain to shape the development of capitalism in its favour, towards revolution.

As Nate notes as well, Tronti doesn’t see this strategy and tactics leading to a revolutionary break but towards a change in the relations between the classes, towards a stronger working class. And, in the absence of such a struggle, a stronger capitalist class.

Now from the top:

Tronti refers in this chapter as elsewhere to “the most advanced” and the “most backward” sectors of the working class. In prior chapters I thought Tronti was clear that he was referring to positions within production. However in this chapter it is less clear to me. For example, he writes (using Nate’s translations here where possible) “The most backward worker sectors tend today to take on, in an active manner, traditional types of struggles, general but defensive. The most advanced sectors, on the contrary, tend to respond anew by renouncing the open struggle, given the lack of offensive capacity of the organized worker movement. ” Backwards/advanced in terms of relation to the official worker organizations, their tactics/forms of struggle, position in production? I’m not even sure I like the whole “backwards/advanced” notion although I mind it slightly less if it is put in terms of relation to the official organizations and forms of struggle.

I liked his analysis of the crisis of Italian capitalism at the time arguing its roots lie in the wage demands of workers that have raised wages beyond the confines of the wages-productivity deal. Quite consistent with his argument that the working class is, as Eric put it, socially dominant.

“The capitalist response to the increase in the nominal wage, in general consisted in attacking the real wage by setting in motion an inflationary spiral of prices, the only way to avoid the immediate effects on production. Thus, one cannot even talk today about a development bottleneck; we have here only a mechanism of readjustment at the same level of the various compartments of the capitalist structure. The bottleneck, the blockage, the crisis of development, are things to be discovered, to build, to impose subjectively and by force.” I liked this. We can’t wait for capitalism to go into crisis but must bring the crisis about ourselves. Capitalism can survive “economic” crises but has a much harder time with political ones or with “economic crises” that are made political.

“The workers dicovered that the economic struggle, under the banner (manteau) of the union, alone is capable of attacking at the base of capitalist power, and constitutes thus, the only political struggle that is practical now.” We see here Tronti’s earlies argument given by the formula: factory =>society => state.

Tronti argues that the union struggle is necessary but not suffcient, organization/struggle on the political terrain is also needed, comes in after the workers have build their strenth in the factory. And continues thereafter to be the key source of strenght for the movement. I got this from his listing of the shortcomings of sydicalism according to him and from the last paragraph paragraph, respectively:

“During all these years we have been in the presence of an example of the political use on a grand scale of the union struggle (lutte syndicale). With all the prospects and also all the limits that this consists of: struggle in the productive structures, immediate confrontation with the boss, the possibility of rapid wage gains, but also sindicalist illusions, errors of spontaneism, under-valuing of organization. Starting from these elements there is reinforced, on one hand the concepts of the “mass party”, and there responds, on the other hand, the organization of minoritarian “groups” for intervention into struggles.” This does indeed seems to describe today well.

And: Tronti states that capitalism will break where the working class is strongest, ““the link in which the chain will break will not be that in which capital is weakest, but rather that in which the working class will be strongest.” And “From this stems the paramount need for the working class to give systematically an open form to its struggle which nourishes organically its political growth. From this stems finally, the need for a political organization of the class, the fundamental duty to make the subjective choice of the ground and moment of the general offensive to strike the system at its base and to several times shake the top, thus building by leaps a continuity of the revolutionary process as a whole.”

I like this. “A law of development: when the political level of the working class and the political unification of capital increase, the union tends to separate itself from the immediate interest of workers, and to integrate itself completely, as institutional mediation, within the capitalist interest…And as regards us today, it is not a question of stopping a development in process, but on the contrary, to use it. It is in the factory, where precisely this use of the union struggle occurs, that you will find workers contempt for the trade unionist that has almost reached the same level of class hatred for the little bosses (management “petits chefs”?), the guards, the technicians and the engineers. In the future it will be more and more thus. But, , how to succeed in organizing this situation today against the social boss?” I read this as let’s use the hatred of workers for this particular type of unions to organize a greater, more radical struggle. Also seems highly applicable today.

A nice quote: “In principle and in reality to be beaten while fighting is best for the working class.”

In the last paragraph Tronti seems to hint at a non-Lenist party form of organization although it still remains unclear to me exactly what he has in mind and whether he is indeed leading towards a rejection of the Party.

“Behind this effort of discovery and rediscovery of the most modern modes and methods by which the presence of the workers in capitalist society was expressed and is still expressed, we will have to hold to the firm conviction that at the decisive moment of the frontal clash, we will find the most elementary forms of struggle and fo organization, the mass strike, violence in the street, the workers’ permanent assembly.” Suggestive but still muddied when taking into account he earlier comments on organization.

Nate asks: “the link in which the chain will break will not be that in which capital is weakest, but rather that in which the working class will be strongest.” (105) Is this
descriptive/theoretical/retroactive — breaks happen due to worker power not capital weakness, this is assessed after the fact of a break — or prescriptive/political/forward looking — don’t focus on the perceived weak links of capitalist development but the perceived strong points of the working class for present and future action?

Good question. When I read this I felt it was prescriptive but there’s nothing in the chapter that I can see to definetly suggest one way or the other. Could it be both?