The left and us

“The more he identifies with the dominant images of need, the less he understands his own life and his own desires. The spectacle’s estrangement from the acting subject is expressed by the fact that the individual’s gestures are no longer his own; they are the gestures of someone else who represents them to him.” - Guy Debord, The Society of Spectacle

Capitalism is not limited anymore to the working sphere, and it extended itself to the whole life, colonizing our free time, our relations between each other’s, our thoughts. The individualization of society must be understood as the progression of capitalism in both the inter-individual relations (and consequently their commodification) and within the individual (for example through modern technologies, medias, bio-politic). During the same time in Europe, the tasks done by the workers are less and less central in the production processes, and mass unemployment is rising. Work remains for sure a source of exploitation, but not only. The fronts are everywhere in society. We thus need to enact that the power now resides in infrastructures, in the economy rather than in political institutions. The targets defined by all the insurectional movements of the last ten years are worth a thousand explanations to show it. Strike was the main form of struggle for workers during the industrial period, now riots are coming back, they emerge and with them the commune. Because the oppression now has spread to every aspects of our lives, a revolutionary politic must more than ever change life in its totality. It means that we refuse the conception of the politic as a separate sphere from life. We are not "militants" like some are teachers or farmers. It is not a part of our timetable like we go to the gym or to work. Our lives are political. As Jacques Mesrine said once, there is no other world, there is just another way to live in it.

This theoretical statement is not merely abstract—it directly shapes our actions on the ground. First and foremost, it calls for a collective struggle, a commune. A commune is not simply a group of people occupying a space and making decisions together; it is primarily a specific relationship between people. To say that our lives are political means our groups must truly know each other, build their autonomy in the present, and address political issues on the ground. Focusing on parliamentary politics is a mistake, as it wastes resources and time for little impact. The first step of revolutionary politics for any group is to live together, discuss together, truly know one another, and take actions together—whether that means stealing or writing graffiti. It is only through this kind of solidarity that we can break through the abstract political ideologies we seek to spread, ideologies that people already know won’t change their lives. This also means breaking with the emergency agenda we are all stuck on, where we focus on the next protest next week without even reflecting on its meaning. How much time and resources did we spend? For what impact? It is for sure time to shift in our strategy.

Defeat of the workers movement

"The workers movement wasn’t defeated by capitalism. The worker’s movement was defeated by democracy. This is the problem which the century puts to us. The matter in front of us, die Sache Selbst, that we must now try to think through" - Mario Tronti, Politics at Sunset

The old dialectic between the workers’ movement and capital has come to an end. Through its most powerful tool—democracy—capitalism has triumphed, and the workers’ movement is now defeated. While the left once played a significant role in shaping the development of the Western world, it has become ensnared by its own strategy. The mediation performed by the traditional actors of the workers’ movement led to its full integration within democracy, ultimately reinforcing the restructuring of capitalism. This process is clear from the 1960s, with slight variations from country to country. Even without accounting for the predictable betrayal of social democracy, communist organizations also followed this path. To attempt to revive this strategy, believing that the same organizational structures could yield a different outcome (with a touch of feminism and anti-racism for a more modern appeal), is both a theoretical and practical mistake.

The consequence of the disappearance of this structuring antagonism, along with other phenomenon, is a deeply depoliticized society, which means an incapacity for the working class (or broadly the people) to put words on the domination they are experiencing. Of this observation we draw two conclusions:

 All the Neo-movements against (most of the time in Europe against a degradation or a change in the way of life) are holding a revolutionary potential. Refusing something is an understandable reaction that can be very basic, even relating fake news (like all the upheavals of the past were), but it is precisely here that life is, that revolt is growing. Here we must go to discuss, to help, to share, so the movement will not be fully integrated in the traps prepared by the democratic system and its apparatus (repression, media, list of claims, voting imperative).

 The deep and violent characteristic of despair and revolt shared in the whole society cannot find a space in "revolutionary" parties or groups precisely because those are waiting, waiting for the right time, waiting to act, waiting for the revolution, complaining about their inability to be powerful rather than acting to change that. In the depressive views they share of their deceived hope to see a comeback of the revolutionary movements and groups of the past, their melancholy about the glorious history of the workers class movement makes them unable to see what is really happening, where are the real subversive issues, the real dangerous people.

We would rather prefer to see with happiness the slow but not less sure disintegration of the old leftist organizations, whose historical betrayal of the workers movement is now clear to everyone. We see with the same happiness the rise of new revolts, individual disobedient actions, concrete material solidarity links. As autonomous, we want to look at these breaches, go inside it, discuss, participate, build the insurrection. That is the first step to a real revolutionary politic.

For a politic of conflicts

One final political hypothesis we wish to present in this article argues that it is now necessary to reconnect with a politics of conflict, not only with the left but even within the radical camp. We are aware that this proposal goes against the dominant position within the radical left, which tends to seek compromise and dialogue. The arguments supporting this position exist, and we do not deny them. Our resources are limited, and we cannot afford internal struggles; we share a common enemy despite our differences, and debate allows us to confront various perspectives to move forward. However, we believe it is both possible and desirable to reconcile these two positions.

Political action is a gesture of differentiation. The assertion of an idea in politics happens through the separation from, or distinction with, another idea. The clarity of a political position is crucial to its ability to convince others of its validity. It is precisely because autonomy and the revolutionary camp lack clarity that they become trapped in counter-cultural logic and scenes, unable to build a mass movement. On the other hand, adopting a clear political position makes one more understandable and approachable. It is a prerequisite for building real political power. It also clarifies debates between groups, forcing revolutionaries to clarify their ideas and take a stance.

Of course, we are not calling for physical confrontation between allied groups, but it seems important to assert and confront different viewpoints. Instead of countless efforts to unify our forces, we hypothesize that each group should strengthen itself individually, addressing its own impotence in this regard, rather than hiding it by relying on other political forces. A politics of conflict within the revolutionary camp, then, for us, means the pursuit of political power and the affirmation of each group within our movement.

A politics of conflict with the left, however, holds different stakes. Here, we must be clear. As autonomous, traditional left-wing organizations are not our allies. Firstly, because they betray the working class whenever they get the chance. Secondly, because they build a hegemony that influences our camp, also paralyzing any spontaneous momentum within a movement, for example. Finally, aligning our goals with those of the parliamentary left wastes our resources and prevents us from building a revolutionary movement on our own. For these reasons, it seems crucial not to fall into the left’s trap and to engage in conflict with their representatives. The sine qua non condition for the emergence of a revolutionary movement in Austria, for us, lies in its ability to radically distinguish itself from the left. Without this, we are doomed to remain a kind of active radical minority, a counter-cultural scene.

In the hope this series of articles will open discussions, debates, and maybe direct actions against the left.

The next article will be on the economic situation in Austria.