This is a text written mainly by Paolo Virno, I believe, signed by the “Immaterial Workers of the World” which I found online here and here. The translation is by Myk Zeitlin. The text is online in Italian here and in Spanish here. It’s title is “What did I tell you?”, in Italian, “Che te lo dico a fare”. It first appeared in issue 18 of Derive Approdi, contents listed here. There’s a short preface to the text which isn’t translated. I may take a crack at that in the next week or so.
The Social Working Day
Politics today is governed by a social time outside of the cardinal points (?). The fixation of a new calendar is the prize of the political struggle.
Social time escapes from the cardinal points at the time when there is no longer anything that distinguishes work from the rest of human activity. So, at the time when work ceases to constitute a special and separate practice, inside of which are in force criteria and peculiar procedures, which are completely different from the criteria and procedures that regulate non-work time.
Work and non-work develop an identical productivity, based on the exercise of generic human faculties: language, memory, sociality, ethical and aesthetic inclinations, capacity to abstract and to apprehend. From the point of view of ” what” one does and ” how” one does it, there is no substantial difference between employment and unemployment. That is to say, unemployment is unwaged labour, and labour in its turn is waged unemployment. One can maintain, with good reason, that as much as one never stops working, so one works always less. These paradoxical or contradictory formulations testify together to the leaving of the cardinal points of social time.
The old distinction between ” work” and ” non-work” is resolved in this between waged life and unwaged life. The boundary between the one and the other is arbitrary, mutable, subject to political decision.
The productive co-operation in which labour power participates is ever more ample, more rich, than that put in the field by the labour process. This includes also non-work. Labour power valorises capital only because it never loses its quality as non-work. Unproductivity, in the eyes of the capitalist (and of the destitute economist) is any service that does not claim in its cause unwaged life.
As social co-operation precedes and exceeds the labour process, postfordist labour is always also submerged labour. This expression doesn’ t mean only uncontractualised employment, ” black work”. Submerged labour is in the first place unwaged life, or rather that part of human activity that, homogenised completely into labour, is not however computed as productive force.
We call production time the indissoluble unity of unwaged and waged life, work and non-work, emerged social activity and submerged social activity. Labour time is only a fraction, and not necessarily the most relevant, of production time.
Surplus value springs today from productive activity that surpasses labour activity in the strict sense. The growth of surplus value is gained, today, by modifying the proportion between the paid part and that unpaid of PRODUCTION TIME as a whole (not just between the paid and unpaid parts of LABOUR TIME only). Beyond the surplus labour of individuals, unwaged production time includes its infralaborative and extralaborative co-operation.
Practical politics at the level of postfordism must make all productive time completely visible, in its complete extent, making of it the only legitimate criteria for the distribution of wealth. The objective of a CITIZEN’S INCOME is obviously central. With this we reclaim retribution for the production time which overflows beyond labour time. The citizen’s income is the SALARY FOR SOCIAL CO-OPERATION which precedes and exceeds labour time. The citizen’ s
income is nothing but the institution of a NEW CALENDAR.
The citizen’s income risks however reducing itself to a (giaculatoria rassicurante)??. Or to a fetish. Rather than give new breath to political action, it could simply confirm the paralysis. If it does not break down into precise points on the budget and federalism, and above all if not sustained by the invention of a REVOLUTIONARY UNION OF IMMATERIAL, FLEXIBLE AND PRECARIOUS LABOUR, the fervent litany on the citizen’s income is equivalent to a discourse on a ” more just society” . And discourses on a ” more just society” we know are often the alibi of apathy or of the sly winking of petty trade.
The New Species
With the expression “mass intellectuality” it is never wished to designate a certain number of particular trades, but a quality of ALL postfordist labour. This formulation signals that labour has become essentially linguistic (mental, cognitive) or, but this is the same thing, that language has been put to work. It is very easy, but wrong to say that mass intellectuality is an economic-sociological category among others, which replaces linearly that used in the fordist ambit. But it is also easy and mistaken to say that mass intellectuality transcends economy and sociology, being defined above all by cultural constellations, ethical dispositions, living contexts. The matter is more complicated. Mass intellectuality is a NEW SPECIES. It is the central axis of capitalist accumulation: therefore it has an extraordinary socio-economic relevance. But it is the central axis of capitalist accumulation PRECISELY BECAUSE (not despite) its salient characteristics can only be described in ethical-cultural terms, as together differentiated from forms of life. Mass intellectuality stands at the centre of the postfordist economy precisely because its mode of being escapes from all concepts of political economy. This is the paradox to confront in terms of theory of organisation.
The principle form of existence of the ” new species” is the RESERVOIR OF MASS INTELLECTUALITY. The reservoir is the spatial/temporal ambit in which comes extralavorative socialisation. It is the context in which one forges the co-operation which precedes and exceeds the labour process. To be concrete, social labour power institutes a bringing together of independent relationships within itself, which last as long as the employment (or lack of employment) of individuals; relationships which give the unitary presupposition of all kinds of flexible and precarious jobs.
The reservoir, in which one develops linguistic co-operation, is the fundamental reality of waged labour no less than of autonomous labour. The legal specifications of types of occupation are precisely just specifications. Communicative and relational labour, formed by the reservoir, is thus eventually also autonomous. But it is not communicative and relational because it is autonomous. In the reservoir of mass intellectuality it is impossible to sever working attitude from the ” world of life” . In this sense the reservoir makes universal and paradigmatic the traditional characteristics of female labour.
The reservoir exhibits within itself, like a geological dissection, all the decisive elements of the globalised economy: migratory flux, communicative networks, clots of abstract knowledge, articulations of state administration. The reservoir is a microcosm which exemplifies, on a local scale, the interlacing of the productive forces mobilised by postfordism.
The fragmentation of the workers defers the unity of the reservoir, and vice versa. Political organisation is the organisation of the reservoir or is nothing.
The reservoir of mass intellectuality requires the growth of a NONREPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY and the formation of a NON-STATAL PUBLIC SPHERE. Everything that is tied to the exchange of equivalents postulates political representation (nonche) the identification of “public” and “statal”. The other way round, everything that coincides with productive co-operation excludes representation and founds a public dimension asymmetrical to the state. So, since the reservoir of mass intellectuality makes everything one with social co-operation which precedes and exceeds work in the strict sense, of itself it needs to say democratic, but not representable, public, but not of the state.
The organisational forms which attach (?) to the reservoir are the Social Centre, the Commune, the Soviet. The growth of a non-representative democracy and the formation of a non-governmental public sphere have as an inescapable condition the MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERALISM, the drastic decentralisation of public spending, the proliferation of local elective assemblies.
A radical federalism holds in hatred the (gaglioffe???) inventions that are the province and the region. They deal with imaginary entities, to dissolve, concentrating the resources thus saved on the effectively LOCAL dimension. Or, if you prefer, municipal. Understanding municipality to mean nothing other than the determined territory in which the reservoir of mass intellectuality organises itself as counter-power.
Every aspect of a federalist re-articulation of powers and competencies can and must be forced in a soviet sense; direct democracy, local self-government, revocable mandates, votes for immigrants and their eligibility for communal administration etc.
Federalism must constitute besides, the institutional premise for a kind of NEP (yes, precisely the NEP promoted by Lenin after the defeat of the revolution in the West. New economic politics designed to run the transition). The federalist NEP consists in giving place to forms of self-entrepreneuriality (or of “business politics” ) within the reservoir of mass intellectuality. A postfordist NEP, a transition which has local roots, here is a definition of federalism fit for drinking.
Participation with our own list, or in others’ lists, in communal or ward elections etc.is an opportune and necessary step. So as opportune and necessary can result the relationship with that caricature of charismatic-bonapartist politics which is today in Italy the mayor. From itself the participation in local elections and eventual talking with the ” party of the mayors” is not something good in itself, nor a copernican revolution: its use is measured, step by step, by the growth of institutions of non-representative democracy (soviet and NEP). As Donnie Brasco said, what did I tell you to do?
Immaterial Workers of the World
It is not wise to be scared of words. For example of the word: UNION. The hatred and contempt that the merchants of labour-power have merited in the course of time should not deter from the salient point: the territorial or ganisation of the most urgent demands of the reservoir of postfordist labour. But (attention!) of the reservoir SUCH AS IT IS before it differentiates itself into wage labour, autonomous, servile, intellectual, executive etc. labour. The development of a REVOLUTIONARY UNIONISM in the heart of postfordism is, and will remain for some time, the principle task of the grand politics. The rest counts and has weight, of course, but is precisely the rest.
We start from a fact so evident and banal, that it escapes however from view and from attention. Postfordist labour is not disposed, in Italy, to even the minimum of self-defence, resistance, collective bargaining. The situation, from this point of view, can be compared to the start of the industrial revolution. The absence of any elementary protection regarding in particular the small productive unit, the fruit of systematic “externalisation” ; the new services, from the pony express (couriers) to the chat-line telephonists; the training contracts; the intermittent performance of intellectual labour (TV collaborators, translators etc.). And regarding, naturally, the immigrants.
A large part of indigenous employed labour shares, today, some typical characteristics of the conditions of migrants. And vice-versa: the migrant exemplifies in the most apparent mode the situation which faces a large part of employed labour. Employees in the personal service sector, in building, as seasonal workers in agriculture, the migrants play likewise a strategic role in
the most advanced industrial regions, from the North East to Pedemontana alle Marche. At the extreme margin, and nevertheless at the foundation, of productive co-operation, the migrant experiments to the highest degree with that clandestinity and that personal rule by which, however, is characterised also the precariarity of the Italian language: enough to think of the young textile workers of Val Bormida forced to sign a redundancy letter which the boss uses when they become pregnant. The two principal points of application of union activity are the “fixed term workers” (that is those that pass several times, in one sense or another, the frontier between labour and non-labour), and the migrants (from) outside the community.
Models of revolutionary unionism are, inevitably, the American Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), the Spanish CNT-FAI in the years before the civil war, the Italian Chambers of Labour running between the 18th and 19th Centuries. Models to study at the root, to sketch out again, that attach themselves well to the reservoir of mass intellectuality. The organisations of catholic voluntary workers offer, in some cases, useful points to put in focus a union form capable of grasping the connections between production and reproduction, labour and non-labour, culture and material interests.
The social centres are, potentially, the CHAMBERS OF LABOUR of the archipelago of submersed, intermittent, flexible activity. A postfordist “chamber of labour” combines different and complimentary functions: a permanent RECEPTION CENTRE for clandestine immigration, an autonomous and alternative JOB CENTRE of mass intellectuality, data-base or ARCHIVE of information and knowledge; legal RED AID for questions of working rights; HOUSE OF MUTUAL AID.
In the large cities the union must root itself in the university. It must open, in every faculty, a section or a “counter” to assess and analyse the conditions of the student-workers and the worker-students. These hybrid figures are an evident key to the problem for whoever wants to organise the reservoir of immaterial labour.
The radical union of the new IWW has as its aim the construction of an ALLIANCE. The reservoir of postfordist labour is today stretched between two trunks: a “middle class” and a “new poverty” . MIDDLE CLASS: sectors of autonomous labour of the second generation, the central nucleus (stable, with directional roles) of the co-operative or the micro-company of the “tertiary sector” , the “symbolic analysts” who the American ex-Minister of Labour Robert Reich speaks of, certain jobs of co-ordination in the innovated factory (FIAT of Melfi), a free-professionalism not without resources in the cultural industry and in communication. NEW POVERTY: the immigrants, the subaltern strata of the “tertiary sector”, the precarious workers without a safety net, off-the-cards workers. To ignore the division is mad. To pick out one of the two polarities to the detriment of the other is like a lie. It is necessary to determine, through the concrete elaboration of a platform of demands, the point of convergence and of reciprocal potentiality between the “middle class” and the “new poverty” , instead of dealing on the run alternatively with the hardships of the one and the tragedies of the other. But it is necessary to know that a spontaneous recomposition is not possible starting from material conditions. What is needed, in the immediate moment, is a POLITICAL PACT (with some inevitable split within the “middle class” ). Or, more precisely, a profitable ALLIANCE.
The union pledges itself to elaborating a “statute of rights” of postfordist labour, that does not oppose “rigidity” to “flexibility” but aims to make of the latter a point of force, or the favourable material base of the institutions of counterpower of living labour. The “statute of rights” requires a long apprenticeship in the form of an INQUIRY, or, but it is the same, a grasp of the words of the mass.
The union fights for the abolition of all forms of copyright, of authors rights, limitations of access to knowledge and information. The productive force based on knowledge and on communication is constitutively common, shared out (?), public. If many arrive at it in unison, it is not devalued, on the contrary, it increases and multiplies its usefulness. The abolition of copyright is the irrenuncable condition of non-representative democracy and of a public sphere finally not of the state.
The union foresees in the school and the university the possibility of a “third sector” : certainly not private or businesslike, but neither state-bureaucratic, anchored in the swindling myth of the legal value of the certificate of study. With a brief image: when one is called on to chose between a headmaster-businessman or a headmaster-prefect, one can only respond requiring the abrogation of the headmaster TOUT COURT.
The reference point for union action is the “class struggle in France” of the last ten years: from the co-ordinations of the infirmary workers (1987) to the victorious struggle against the entrance wage (1994), from the transport workers strike which paralysed the Paris region, winning the solidarity of the users (1995) to the dispute over the guaranteed income opened by the unemployed (1997). Taken by itself, each episode is only interesting; considered together, in their sequence and internal links, these same conflicts constitute instead a true and real laboratory of the possible antagonism in the postfordist environment. The grave limits of the Italian Cobas (one thinks of the great dispute of the teachers in 1987) has been its business-based, or rather territorial character. And so, above all, the inability to flow out from the stable and guaranteed sectors of employment (public services and big factories). And to insert itself in the fabric of the flexible, mobile, precarious proletariat. From this its progressive decline.
To discuss revolutionary unionism, in Italy, means to pose also the question of Rifondazione communista. Or better, of the destiny of this organisation after the split and the leaving of the governing majority. Rifondazione is in fact at a junction: either the fetishization of the party form or getting used to living through the crisis with an inventive and experimental spirit; either to bare as a diminution the (quasi) extraparliamentary condition to which it has been reduced, or to take it as an opportunity to relaunch the social conflict. In synthesis: either the mythic-ritual cult of identity or investing itself (a part of itself, more or less) in a union action at the level of the times. Tertium non datur. The clever theorist does not exist to retain much further as realistic a mythic-ritual option by Rifondazione. It is true, the probabilities are decisively on that side. But whoever is not indifferent to practical politics is not content with disenchanted expectation. There are other problems. Do not ignore the weight that a commitment by militants from Rifondazione would have in the construction of an organisational network between the now proverbial couriers or the textile workers of Val Bormida. Bet on the improbable. Proceed by trial and error.
Socialdemocratic Europe and Forum for guaranteed income
Let’s not make a mistake. It is an error to believe that there still subsists a “socialdemocratic question” , or rather a complex project of society against liberalism, a defence to the bitter end of the welfare state, a reformist attempt at a “workers use of the state” . None of this. Socialdemocracy, today in government in Europe, compares without exception, even if also in different measure, to the US Democratic Party; political forces voted alternately, not as an alternative. Alternating within a horizon of political economy predetermined and immovable.
This means, among other things, that the socialdemocracies of today are no longer compact political bodies endowed with that granite identity that the infernal couple “labourism and statism” had as a standard in the past. In the socialdemocracies, as also in the American Democratic Party, it is possible to recognise heterogenous stratifications, diverse generational and cultural sediments, lobbies in conflict among themselves. The only serious analysis of socialdemocracy (serious because aimed at a practical questioning on single questions) is a transversal analysis.
Within socialdemocracy and the Greens it is possible to pick out today a European tendency inclined to promote experiments, even if partial and limited, of a citizens income. A tendency that admits, even under the technical and econometric profile, the failure of all other proposals intended to contain and to govern structural mass unemployment. Speaking with this tendency (in Italy coinciding maybe with that part of the 77 generation which, out of hatred of Berlinguerism and the historic compromise, looked with sympathy on the birth of the PDS) is obviously fundamental.
The grand politics, which has as its base the revolutionary syndicalism of the postfordist IWW has in the citizens income NOT yet a point of arrival, BUT of starting. That which really counts are the struggles, the forms of counterpower, the ability to take the initiative of immaterial labour, which can arise on the base of an even very timid supply of money to the unemployed. But this starting point must be followed, step by step, by a TRANSVERSAL political-cultural battle, planted within and outside the European democratic party (read: socialdemocracy no longer socialdemocratic a Green).
To take the initiative with pliability and lack of prejudice implies, however, the simultaneous construction of an appropriate “place” , of a structure far more agile which could co-ordinate, deepen, empower political action. A FORUM FOR NON-REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND A CITIZENS INCOME is the order of the day. To tell the truth it is already late. To favour transversalism is certainly not to limit it. To anticipate a fragment of a non-state public sphere is therefore not a parody. To make visible a collection of analyses, opinions, proposals that, radical but not at all extremist, converge in the demand: CAN YOU IMAGINE REVOLUTION?
This is a response by Negri.
BIOPOLITICS AND COUNTERPOWER by Toni Negri
In what mode can a political initiative in metropolitan Italy (which is what the documents we are discussing deal with) be put in relation with the web of forces social and political, critical and radical of Europe? The question is twice difficult to satisfy, or – if you like – twice paradoxical. To what advantage, in act, to claim a uniting with the political forces when all the action forecast and solicited by the document is essentially social?
Why claim a European dialectic of movement, political and social, when, to be realistic (as is opportune) not even the metropolitan Italian web seems today effectively practical, in a critical and radical perspective?
The responses to these questions are diverse. I believe the one given to question 1 is fundamental. To approach it let us put in evidence some principles of that which is called the new political science. (When I speak of the ‘ new political science’ I
speak, ironically but not too much, as the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution spoke of their ‘new science’. They claimed that some intuitive principles had to be affirmed, in the age of Light, and universally diffused, so that, irresistibly, they constitute the base of all correct political reasoning. Can we suppose that Foucault and Deleuze represent for us that intuitive patrimony that for the Founding Fathers was represented by Hume and Rousseau?)
Today, the first principle of the new political science is the affirmation of the biopolitical battleground (?-campo). It means that there is no ‘autonomy of the political’; that on the contrary production and administration completely merge, without a residue, because to the extent that production becomes social, politics becomes productive. Seen from the point of view of the subjects, biopolitics means that the economic and the political, the union and the bosses, the voluntary and the institutional order of social production etc. live the one within the other; the field of politics is therefore defined in a completely new way (it is intuitively evident) of biopolitics, in this way – according to this – is defined newly and fully the productive. The second principle of the ‘ new political science’ is that the struggle for power, in the case of biopower, develops within the biopolitical field, and that consequently the bioploitical field is qualified by a radical antagonism. The antagonism is manifest whenever the decisions over biopower, on the part of the producers of the social, reveal themselves irreducible to those that express the economic and political expropriators of social capital and the democratic institutions that represent them. Or better, wherever the social expression of productive power (biopolitics) is held back, distorted, blocked in forms of preservation of economic order and/or of the reproduction of preconstituted biopower.
If things are so, one can therefore respond to the double paradox raised in question 1 (why a social action, to become effective, must cross politics) recognising tranquilly that the relationship between social action and the political is made necessary by the biopolitical integration of the two. In the Fordist regime this integration was anticipated (in crude but comparable forms) by the wage-form: the workers wage represented in fact the antagonism between the political and the social. Today, in the post-fordist regimes, the biopolitical integration of the social becomes ever more strong and effective: the relationship between the wage and value, between production and politics, between wage and politics ever more direct. So it is necessary to merge social and political action, and to manage them together.
But, still trying to respond to question 1, one must immediately add that, however much it is integrated, the biopolitical web is antagonistic. When we accept entering public institutions, we do not therefore enter them because through them it is possible to produce long marches of transformation of their nature; nor because it is possible, by hiding in them to wait for the fatal moment of their revolutionisation: if we enter them it is to exercise a real dualist function (of reapropriation of space, material means and political possibility of alternative investment). I believe that to this proposal an old, very old category, that of dual power can and must be taken up again. (There are comrades who protest against the use of concepts referable to the practice of communist or ‘revolutionary syndicalist’ struggle. To this annoyance one can, without arrogance, respond the ‘the dualism of power’ constitutes maybe the most elementary and pragmatic form of politics: that there is no politics where there is not ‘ dualism of power’ and that as a consequence to refuse to use these terms is completely senseless because these terms are far more old and far more anthropologically rooted than however glorious the communist practice has experimented. Certainly when we talk of the ‘dualism of power’ we do not mean the legitimization of the immediate and summary destruction of the adversary; we mean above all an exercise of antagonism which aims to take away substance from the capacity of the exploiters to exercise biopower – a long and vast exercise not a short and excited phase of war, and above all an exercise of ontological destruction of the adversary, a process of biopolitical hegemony. On the other hand we must pay attention to not confusing entrance into a process of public administration with the simple exercise of lobbying functions, without any general
The ‘ metropolitan (postfordist) labour clubs’ if there should ever be such a thing, can not but be organs of counterpower, or at least of dualism of power: they can not but express the radical diversity of interests of those who want to produce and are impeded from it (the unemployed), of those who produce and are exploited (the workers), of those who produce the sociality of the conditions of production and are expelled from it etc., in respect of those who hold the keys of these mechanisms of production of capitalist order of society. This said we move on to question 2, and that is how to transport this paradoxical antagonistic relationship from the Italian metropolis to that of Europe?
We immediately leave the terrain by a possible simple objection: it is already very difficult to resolve certain problems in metropolitan Italy, so that to extend the range to the European terrain seems, immediately illusory and adventurist, The ‘ new political science’ offers us a third intuitive and necessary principle: the antagonistic relationship is global and nomadic.
What does this mean? For those that look it means that we will not manage to give any solution to the problems that are in front of us, if we don’t pose them immediately in a global light. But the global is nomadic, is so because of forces, powers, movements that refuse the limits of the nation state, that have already gone beyond it, that project their desires outside of any structural determination of the local, because by the local one carries backwards a radical antagonism. So again we find ourselves in front of a (necessary) journey of biopolitical integration between the local and global (for now we content ourselves with Europe) but, _at the same time_ of very singular contradictions that make untravelable the journey between local and global politics. (Here we expound on a theme: that of federalism. In constitutional history if federalism on one side has often represented a model of democracy – though certainly not direct – close to the citizen, on the other side it has also represented a reticular organisation of power that neutralises local contradictions, and in the end destroys any antagonist resource.
Today many comrades insist on federalism as a model of grass roots democracy. They are undoubtedly right. But they can defend the federalist model only if they can make rise again the antagonist resources rather than the consensual ones and those of constitutional equilibrium. And above all if they will arrange to define and manage the federalist model as a runway of linking with Europe and, at the same time, of exporting elements of social antagonism, of biopolitical contradictions. Today the ‘ new political science’ to which we refer proposes a new definition of federalism: the definition of a nomadic federalism, in which the preconstituted values and powers are not saved and defended; on the contrary the powers are predisposed to struggle and to hegemony of all those who want to produce – and are excluded from doing it – who want to circulate (and are forbidden by the opposition of borders and laws) who want to live freely and produce as much as their potential allows.)
So how to respond to the second question that we have posed? How to transfer the antagonist relations that we propose in metropolitan Italy, through an exercise of counterpower, on the European level? How to conceive of a metropolitan counterpower in the environment of a nomadic European federalism? The first two principles of the ‘ new political science’, the one about biopolitics and the one about the antagonistic nature of decisions over biopower, open up two fundamental constitutional demands: that of universal and unconditional ‘citizens income’ and that of ‘proletarian reapropriation’, or better of a constitutionalization of a counterpower that could affect the distribution of biopowers in terms of class. How to insert in this conceptual environment the third principle, that of ‘ nomadic federalism’? The only road to go down seems to be that which shows how none of these principles can live in the absence of the others: this requires (?) the logic of the new ‘ political science’. There is no possibility of ‘counterpower ‘ in fact, wherever citizens are excluded from income; for the poor there is no democracy. Neither is there a possibility of income if there is not the capacity for autonomous reapropriation of spaces of administration; for the slaves there is no citizenship.
Finally there is neither the possibility of wages or of the power of citizenship if workers are not allowed to move freely in the biopolitical space of production. Wages and citizenship are not in fact merely a collection of legal norms but an excess of movements, a desiring machine and an ontological device of transformation – always open. We re-propose now, in a slightly more complex form, our third question; how to insert a ‘ nomad (or nomadic) federalism int’o the program of European proletarians? I don’t know how to reply to this question. What is true is that in Europe, against the socialdemocratic forces that, on this theme, are particularly mute and often reluctant to take positions in favour of nomadism by immigrants, there emerge ever more political positions, Verts and Grunen who seem open to this program. The theme that we propose, that of making central ‘nomadic federalism’ in a program of ‘ citizens income’ and of ‘proletarian reappropriation of administrative spaces’ can maybe be proposed in the discussions with the French and German greens. It is true that these political forces are, some times, if not indifferent, certainly less attentive to the other themes that are central for us: as much that of ‘ citizens income’ as of ‘reappropriation of administrative spaces’. However I believe that we must lead the collection of forces to which we refer into the environment of a European political action: hoping that in brief it will now how to express also the ‘deep red’ of the tradition of workers and proletarian struggle of the centuries, and viceversa.