Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Pier Vittorio Aureli - The Project of Autonomy

    Cargado por

    Emil Burbea
    24 vistas61 páginas
    autonomy and architecture

    Derechos de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponibles

    PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    autonomy and architecture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    24 vistas61 páginas

    Pier Vittorio Aureli - The Project of Autonomy

    Cargado por

    Emil Burbea
    autonomy and architecture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 61
    The Project of Autonomy: Pier Vittorio Aurel cet com co SSR anata en 4 ‘Autonomy and History 8 Autonomy and the Left 8 ‘Autonomy and the Intellectuals a Panzietl: Capitalism and Technological Innovation ‘Aro One and the Same 3 Tronti: Society Is a Factory 9 . ‘rontl and Cacciar: Autonomy ofthe Political ‘and Negative Thought = Rossi: The Concept ofthe Locus as a Political Category ofthe City 0 Acchizoom:The Autonomy of Theory versus ‘the Ideology ofthe Metropolis n AStocmath a Notes and Credits . 0 Iustrations ‘Autonomy and History 1989 the Greek-French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis gave a lecture at Boston Unlversity with a signieant title: "The Retreat from Autonomy." The cove of Castoriadi's lecture was 2 polemical attack on the widely accepted historical poviodization ‘modern/postmodern. Castoriadis objected to this perioization because it provoked an impasse within history’s necessary ‘movement of ruptures and revolutions, Ifthe idea of modernity ‘existed only as @ prolonged state of the prosent—which ‘contradicted its explicit pretensions tobe the tradition of the new —italso announced the antimodern theme par excellence the end of history" On the other hand, the idea of postmodern, as the antithesis of modernity, manifested a pathetic inability ‘to.express something postive foul court, "leading toits 3 definition as simply post-something thats, through areference tothat which was buts not anymore, andte its attempts at sol- * In spite ofthe lucidity ofthis analysis, Panaler! would not be able to ge beyond his ambiguous proposal forthe workers to take contro of society through democratic means. The Quaderni £058 position would remain atthe level ofan analytical approach ‘othe problem of the working class. The questions that would increasingly arse among the Operaists inthe aftermath of Panzier's analysis were the following: What political conclusion could be projected ou of his analysis in order to overturn the Status quo imposed by the productive forces of capitalism? What kind of approach tothe status que could be theorized so asto transform the working-class point of view nto a viable political position concerning "workers control"? ‘A concrete answerto these questions was implicitly given by the so-called events af Piazza Statute in Turin, which took place in 1962. Turin—the Detroit of Italy —possessed in te 1950s and 19605 the most advanced forms of industrial production by virtue ‘ofthe presence there of FIAT, the leading Italian automobile industry, In the late 1950s and early 1960s the city became a center of massive immigration from the south ofthe country, whlch contributed dramatically to changing the features ofits working class. No longer was the “skilled worker,” with is pride ts producer and his dependence on established unions, the protagonist of italian labor. Owing to the immense quantita leap in industrial production as an effect of the abundant new supply of workers, what emerged in Italy's industrial north, and ‘especially in Turin, was an entirely different kind of pre 2 1 aes much more alienated an thus rebalious against, not ‘oli ovont toward, work The new workers did not ust ditike {hr jos, they hated them. Their dependanee on the factory was noly opportunistic and doveid aftractionel workers ethics and vyponsibiity toward praduetion. In duly 1962, tho workers represented by the so-called yellow ‘union, Ui, the refozmist wing within the syndicate, signed! a nwa of contract separately rom the “rad nian” the unions ropresenting the more leftist workers, One ofthe ed unions, CGIL, organized a demonstration that was supposed ta march from the FIAT factory toward the seat ofthe UIL. Although the ‘lomonstration was intended by the union leaders to be peaceful ‘some ofthe workers provoked an intense querrila fight against {he UIL, which then spread throughout te city. The struggle was ‘massive and lasted several days. What was most impressive ‘and shocking for man left-wing activists, however, was that for the first time the workers were openly contesting the politica hhoundaries set by the unions. Tho workers were now directing their protest against the unions themselves, seen as an integral part ofthe system, ‘The Piazza Statuto protest revealed to the Operaists better 1a any sociological analysis the features ofthe naw palitical subject: the mass worker. Ths subject was no longer 2 passive and well-organized leftist militant proud of hs condition as a \Worker-producer and defined ideologically by the democratle politics ofthe official organizations ofthe workers’ movement Instead, he was much more cynical about his work, and thus—here was the paradox—potentially much more efective lin his struggle agains the repressive and paternalistic policies ole factory. What was especialy notable was that the worker hard oftheir work was a direct result of eaptalism’s advance ‘oward a more sophisticated systom of production. Celebrated hy the Operaistsas the emergence ofa rude razzapagana (rude pagan race) the new mass worker was seen as inaugurating ‘ha possibilty ofa reelutionary new perspective onthe ‘working-class movement atthe most advanced levels of apitalist social organization, ‘Al.the same tim, it was in offering an answerto the sseanario of which Piazza Statuto was the mast shocking *” symptom that the goup around Panzieri would break into two parts, Panzer himself was very skeptical about how much Importance attriauteto the Turin events, and he save the ‘mass workers' anarchic forms of protest as politically nls, ‘The intellactuals inthe group gathered around Mario Tron however, saw in the protests the possiblity to move from a purely ‘analytical theory of the working class toa revolutionary practice. But the difference at position between Panzieri and Trent was ‘ven more subtle and fundamental. For Panzer, the autonomy of the workers hae tobe built fom below through an intensiieation ‘ofthe social analysis oftheir concltion and proposal to ‘organize them democratically For Tont, the only way to organize the workers reaction was through direct struggle. Autonomy for ‘Trontl, who unlike the ret ofthe Operaists was stilla member ‘of the Communist Party, thus meant the possibility of seeing the whole of society as a struggle of one part of society against another part of workers against capital. Tionti: Society Is a Factory ‘The group aligned with Mario Tront atthe beginning of 1964 Included, among others, the literary historian Alberto Asor Rosa, the polities activist Rita di Leo, the young assistant professor of philosophy atthe University of Padua Antonio Negri, the historians Umberto Coldageli and Gaspare De Caro,and the young philosophy student and activist Massimo Cacciar ‘The monthly journal they founded, Classe operaia (Working lass), was—at least at the beginning —less essayisticthan ‘Quaderni rossi and more focused on politcal intervention. From ‘the star, Tron’ had played an important role in Quadernirossi, publishing throe fundamental essays int that distinguished. position fom Panzior's. In contrast othe laters critique of technological development, Tontiafirmed in his essay “ll piano ddl capitate” (The plan of capital) that while the development ‘of capitalism was responsible fr the improved treatment of ‘the working class, It as, in Fact, the pressure ofthe labor force ‘that triggered capitalism's response and determined the level ts development, not vice versa." In other words, the trigger of capitalist development was capitalism's need to organize Itself in response to the working class. Capitalism thus implicitly recognized the steatogic centrality of the working class, which, by virtue of being pad labor, constituted is founeation. The more capitalism developed, Tronti suggested, the moreit had to keep in mig thatthe working class was a constant threat to iat any ‘moment this class cout find a way to subvert the system simply by being a dovelopmental trigger Fellowing Lenin ont wrote: [The ino enrching forthe salvation of the wore everyere ‘rceptin tho frtar development of capaliam's a The bourgee evolution oters (fet advantage othe poeta In era sees nach Imofeuseultotne proletariat thant ha bourgeois esi” This positon constituted a total reversal of Panzian's perspective. What Tront was proposing was not en opposition to capitalist development withthe vague idea of mobilizing the workers democratically, but the workers’ political power "against from within” capitalist development itself. As Panzier! had already emphasized, capitalist progress wasted to its need to.extracta surplus from labor by eeducing the possiblities of insuborsination.Tront argued forthe necessity of going bayond this analysis, not by negating its premises, but by assuming them radically, from the workers’ point of view. This point of view was. the perspoctive ofa class that recognized its power inits own capacity to forward capitalism's evolution by means of incessant Struggle witht The more advanced capitalism became, the ‘more advanced the working class's capacity to attack would ‘become. Lenin had translated Marx out of the context of the industrially advanced England ofthe nineteenth century into the backward Russia of the early twentieth century, believing from @ tactical stendpoint thatthe communist revolution would be most elfective onthe level of his country’s underdevelopment. nthe 1960s Trot argued far bringing Lonin’s revision of Marx back nto a highly industrialized Europe. This idea, which he metaphorically referred toas “England!” (where Marx wrote Das Kepital), was based on his belief that the proletariat was surfciently mature ‘und advanced at this point to deeet a new communist revolution 2 ‘against the most advanced form of capitalism. “This was one ofthe main hypotheses ofthe project of ‘autonomy as elaborated by the Operasts It took form in Teont's ‘iret eitorlal-manifesto in Classe operaa, titled “Lonin in Inghilterra” (Lenin in England).” Ina stylistically idiosyncratic manner, which trom then on was to typify the one-sided stance hot only af Operaism but of Autonamia a well (yp through such recant manifestos as Hardt and Neg's Empire), Tron afrmed: Wetoo heve worked with concept ha puts aptaliet evelonment Fistand woreresocond This samistate So ow we hareto ‘entho prem ons hans, reveae he poles and star again trom he vegining nde besining ithe lass struggle tthe Working clase, Att lol of socal developed capital captaist Ulovelopmant becomes auborinted fo workng-lass struggles Iolo china them, thy sete pzoto which the pial ‘mochaniemeoteapals own prediction musts tuned In order to understand better the,theoretical premises of “Lenin in Ingiltera," though, we need to go backto Troat's ‘seminal essay “La fabbriea ela socleta” (Factory and society), published i the second issue of Quaderni rossi Referring to Marx, Tronti emphasized the two faces of capitalist production: the production process andthe value process. Inthe fist process the workers use the machines; in the second, the machines use the workers, or this reason capitalism s66s ‘the production process as nothing more than capita, the transformation of labor into value For Tronti, the main principle ‘of capitalism's power is thus its ability to conflate "living Tabor” (workers cooperation, the productive force that creates value) with “dead labor" (value in itso). This being the case ‘wroteTronti, {Chale dentists 0m way the uty btw he process ‘of radcing goods andthe process of producing valve: the more eat th unity, the moreit develops nth ors dela, the ‘marth foensocapalist rocuction invade every sphere oe aty {hd proliferate wthin he sholenebwork of sci lations” But from the capitalists point of view the process of production and the process of creating value were strictly s parallel and complementary, rom the working-class perspective these two processes were clearly and sharply distinct In their unity The workers! autonomy was thus the possibility of distinguishing botwaen tho procoss of work—thomsclvos—and the process of value creation—capital—"to the point of putting ‘one process against the other as two processes tha ultimately contradict one another’ This meant opposing to cepltaism’s positive process of creating its own value the workers’ negative process of creating value, which consistad oftheir wil to be non- ‘work, to refuse work thats, to be the "material lever of capitalist dissolution placed at the decisive point of the eystem."= Capitalism, according to Tron, transformed the value ofthe labor force through a price that coreesponded not tolabor ints potential state, butto labor already accomplished; wage labor corresponded to labor completed, What capitalism was paying for, in other words, was performance, which was what maintained ita value within the system of capita. Capitalism’s fundamental ‘nystifieation is that it conceals the fact thal tho more the system of production moves toward newer forms of prodietion, the more Itblurs the gistinction batween the portion of work that has already been paid for and the portion that has not. According to Tron this mystfication became the very concept of wage lator. Here existod the most powerful and totalizing mode of domination over the working class, namely the transformation of this clas defacto by means ata concept that had been imposed ‘oni turing it from the basls of eapital into amere variable within the system. For this reason, Tronti proposed, as Panzier hha to look beyond distribution and consumption as moments cof exploitation, and to return—as Marx had insisted—to production asthe fundamontal moment ithe relationship bbtween the working clags and capital, understood not simply ‘as a process accurring within the factory, but extending outward {rom the factory tothe entirety of social ite. For Panzier, as we already have bbe reduced sic 2 simpliciter tothe production of ma Production consisted ofthe organization ofthe social relations| ‘novessary to make labor power productive, Starting from this doa, Trontl argued that capitalist production tended constantly {o,go beyond itself in determining distribution, exchange, ‘consumption, and all the relations among these moments In spite ofall the bourgeois mystficstions production was thus the structure of society, Soclety was afactory. As Tront wrote: [Tne move cota development advances, which moans the orth roduc of lt sup onan tsehthe mare the Catt eel of proccton sitributon-cnsumption baconce ‘he At he boat th claionahip batwaan Borges prosecton ad ‘aotlst production, betweon salt andthe factor ane between Society ana the statis organi. Ate highest pinto capa evelopment socal production bacomaes moment of he pocoss ot froduetion which means thatalloFeciety ves whi he acon snd the fetoryexands its dominion ov thawholet soca twas within this scenario of infinite extension of the concept ofthe factory—aconcept that, as we shall soo, was the premise for Archizoom's No-Stop City—that the factory ‘disappeared as an actual place: “Whon the whole of society is teduced de facto toa factory the factory as such tends to disappear. tis on thie material basis, at vory high level, that ‘the whole metamorphic process of bourgeois ideology camos toa conclusion.” The landscape in which this process was frst ‘enacted and conceptualized was the early twentieth-century capitalist metropolis. But tin the early stages the metropolis ‘was a compact and cancentrated artifact in opposition tothe Countryside, in its ater stages it was moreateritory. While ‘many latter-day Marxists would read the features of his now matropolitan-teritarial landscape as an Eden of consumption, Tront and the Oporaisis saw itas integral to, and a projection of, the social means of production, This interpretation was possible nly within the context ofa rigorous reappropriation of Marx's insistence on production as the fundamental principle of so Ita from thi principle —tho principle of production—that Tionti established his project of autonomy. In this context, the subjectivity of the workers bocame objected asa force of capitalism, while industrial development ‘was personified in the figure of the capitalist. From the capitalist perspective of te labor force as a mere commodity, the aim ‘was to economize on the means of production, to produce more ‘commodities with fewer commodities, a strategy that as Panzior ty. had already noted, meant that capitalist development constantly strove to reduce tha number of workers while prolonging theit ‘working hours. For Tron it was on this ground that workers should found their own fom of struggle. Ifthe capitalists wanted ‘to obtain more with less, the workers should aim to give thom loss fox more—mare money, that i, for less work. From this derived the possiblity, forTront, of reversing the process ‘of capitalist development inthe direction ofthe workers" political autonomy: ‘Tho working-class trates forced the capita madly the formofhis domination This sans that the pessire ofthe woking {ase eabloto foes captaiamtoctangs te temal compotion [At tis point the working clas intervenes thin the capa system Hore appeared cloarly forthe irsttime what was to constitute ‘the focus of Tront's theoretical workin the years o come: the ‘autonomy ofthe politcal Autonomy for Tront imped not only culture of conflict, but a technique of negotiation. Political negotiation was what established the rulas that regulated! the institutionalize struggle betwoon capital and labor. thus 100k place on ground that was not neural but constituted by the relationship of forces between two adversaries. Nox could the power ofthe workers be based simply onan inherent capacity ‘oresist capitalism. They also had to demand control ofthe Institutions of negotiation, and in order todo so, they had to occupy the same political round as the bourgeoisie —that of political institutions such as the Communist Party—because, ‘a8 Tiont stated, “itis written nowhere thatthe politcal ground afte bourgeoisie wil remain forever under the sky of eapitallst society But in order to seize this possiblity to engage in «direct negotiation with capitalist institutions, the workers had to discover their own nature in the most radical way, through the vory form of the working class, a discovery framed as apolitical, Projact a risis within capitalism's evolution. Finally, In his book Opera capitale Workers and capital, 1966), Tron clearly counterposed the two protagonists, the |workors and the capitalists, as poles of an irreducible enmity Tin this clash, what became the decisive political factor forthe 6 ‘autonomy of the working class was the Issue of work. As Marx had affirmed (and Tronti quotes), "[T]he subjective essence of private property, as subject, as person, is work" The concept ‘of private property invanted by the capitalists was simply a reflection ofthe workers" expropriated labor. Iwas for this reason that, as Tronti noted, "since Adam Smith political ‘economy has chaser labor as its principle. Labor is thus political ‘economy's absolute measure—that sits wn abstraction“ ‘Against this principle, Marx had recast the Hegelian notion of the labor force in politiea terme, aking labor not as an abstract ‘category but as a subjective force expropriated fram the wockor. ‘What economists Identified as the costs of production were not ‘the costs of production for workin itself, but rather the costs ‘to keep workers in thie state of potential labor. The difference betivaen Work and labor force boiled down to the fact that as producers of work the workers had no subjectivity of their own, while as members ofthe labor force they did. Accordingly, for Tiontiitwasno longor possible to talk about work but only aout labor force. It as ths latter concept that incarnated the ‘autonomous subjective power of the worker against work, and thus against capital. "Labor as labor force already existed in ‘writes Tronti; "labor force as commodity already existed in Ricardo, Tho commodity labor force asa class of workers: this is Marx's discovery Marcas the theoretical foundation, abor force asthe reality, ofthe workers, the working class asthe political subject: was this sequence ofideas that constituted Tronti's discovery of the warkere' autonomous dimension, For Tron to rediscover Marx did not mean to prolong the tradition of Marxism, butto reconstruct Marx's orignal antagonism toward capitalism: the necessity of the working class 88 a precondition ofthe capitalist process of value creation and thus is ultimate threat. Within this ‘conception, the political meaning ofthe working class became, simply; the negation of work This conception ofthe working class, fits presence, ‘organization, and evolution, in itself constituted a strategy for refusing work andl thereby for elusing capitalism. For Tron the strategy of retusal became the essence ofthe working class's Identity.The strength ofthe working class was embodied not In the constructive positivity of work but rather in its refusal to ‘be workin other words, inan obstinate, destructive negativity, Ina de facto demonstration ofits intransigence towardits ow lransformation into wage labor. The refusal of work thus became: the litmus test ofthe effectivity ofthe working class asa political body, a effectivity potentially much greater than that ofits role Inthe evolution of capitalist production. Indeed, accarding to Tronti the evolution of capitalism would henceforth be required to find its point of departure inthe workers’ negativity, in thelr identity as fatal source of contradiction for eaptalism rathor than in thoi voluntary servitude as tokens of capitalist progress. This veritable Copernican revolution was envisioned by Tront as completely overturning the concept ofthe political subject In relation to capitalist exploitation Ifthe force of the working class up until this point had been measured according 0 categories of resistance and reform ofthe status quo, Tront saw Inthe workers refusal in thelr passive non-collaboration inthe project of becoming capital—of becoming nothing buta labor {orce—the latent nucleus of rue political emancipation and of radical autonomy from capitalist development. Iwas only necessary, then, Tront belioved, to liborate the workers fom capitalist reason and the capitalist myth of work, ‘This procoss of liberation, which no longer viewed the working class asa class for labor but as a class fr Itself could be attained only through a dissolution of preexisting thought. "Man, Reason, History,” affirmed Tont, "these monstrous divinities ‘must be fought and destroyed But the work of dissolution was, not to be the spontaneous pars destruens of someone who fights blindly against an enemy. Ithad to take on the sophisticated ‘Doppelcharakter of anew kind of lass struggle: "Theoretical reconstruction and practical destruction, from this moment on, annot but run together like the legs of one and the same body’ Thus working-class nihilism toward forms of corporate society tid not mean destruction frit ovn sake, but instead a re thooretial and strategie project of attaining emancipation and powor through refusal and autonomy rather than adaptation and rolorm. As Tontl writes at the conclusion to Operaie capital: Tactios of organization nade to arcve at th strategy oof IRsbetoon orpaistion a else that he workrs rustinsert thoieweapon neta to reduce eptalsm to a suboranate force. “Thc weapon consi the wore then negate her um Sssentil edition inthe hele system of expt coil alain. ‘Recording tot thetaake of he workers’ party are: not¥o susp aotlon's neds teen into frm of worker’ Seman force the capital st to presen ther objective necessities a hen "ubjctivelrtuss thems tooree he boss asks ha the ‘weharecanactiey--tnat i morgerize erms-—sepy tthe na “Tot and Cacciari: Autonomy ofthe Political ‘and Negative Thought {At the end ofthe 19608 and inthe 197 the Autonomia groups: ‘applied this strategy literally Under the influence of Antonio "Negri, refusal changed from a acti tobe used by autonomous workers’ organizations into an often anarchic, individualistic Subversion undertaken far its ovn sho, Maro Tron’ scheme of putting the workers’ struggle fist and capitalist development ‘cond was applied mechanically to any transformation capitalist organization, tothe point of ooking tothe political Crisis ofthe working-class movement inthe 1970s asthe ultimate challenge to advanced capitalism. Within the contoxt of the capitalist structuring ofthe assembly line, the mass worker became, according to Negri tho “social worker” I the working class was a politically strong subjec, the "social worker" was the symptom of the proletarianization of an apolitical middle class. Against this scenario of inereasing depalitiization, Tront shifted his attention for the political possiblities existing within the advanced forms of capitalism toward the political tout ‘court, understood asa counterstrategy to political economy, ‘Already in Operaie capita, however, Tront had seen the strategy ofthe workers" refusal asthe most extreme form—tho Ltimate instance of politcal autonomy, strategy to be put in service of mobilizing the workers as an effactive force with respect to eapitaist production, Therefore the stcategy a refusal shoulé not be understood as an anarchic escape from work, but as only one ofthe tactics—the ‘most radial one-— within the overall political strategy ofthe = ‘workers’ pert, Folloting the experience of Classe aperaia, which ceased publishing tthe end of 1966, and tne publication tho same year of Operaieeapitale, Tiontis focus turned to what hhad happened to the working class ator Mare Starting from the premise that Marxist theory was a radical critique of capitalist Political economy but was nota theory ofthe political as such, “Tront analyzed the evolution af the working class trom the ‘opposite point of view. He focused on elaborating & history ofthe working class per vie negatia, that i, a history written in terms ‘ofthe politica initiatives of capitalism, and consequently the State, to contain the pressure ofthe workors twas precisely ‘at moments when there was a"state of exception” —during ‘crisis, or whon the worksrs' demands reached their highest level of intensity —that capitalism was forced to take the Initiative politically snd act with a certain independence from the economic determinants ofits policis. In these rare but, decisive moments, twas possibie to see politics at workin a pure, autonomous form: as afriendienemy struggle betwoen capitalism and its adversary. ‘As Tronti stated in a sominar organized by Norberto Bobbio in 197Bat the faculty of political eiencein Turin, "The autonomy ofthe political is an expression which is comman in political, studies, but which sounds ait strange and new inthe ambit of| Marxist approach The immediate problem was to analyze not the degree of autonomy of one level from the othe, bul the ‘autonomy of political power tout court with respect to economic {doterminations. Marxist tradition hd always rejected any theory ‘of political autonomy inasmuch as it denied the economic ground. Ita for this reason that, according to Trans, the “concept ‘ofthe politica” had tobe introduced into Marxism as anew category" that included bath tie objective ground of institutions ‘established by the capitalist bourgeoisie and, atthe same time, ‘heir subjective use, thats, their political actions. Behind this, projectlay Tont'’s fundamental eneountar with the thought of Carl Schmitt. As he would write much later, Schmitt was ‘ossontial in order to paliticize Marx radically, beyond both the !nalsis of politica economy and ofthe political consequences ‘of poltical economy—namely th critique of ideology —In order to atrive at an autonomous critique of power. Thus “Karl und «“ Carl" as he would ttl one of the chapters of his book La police altramonto (The sunset of politics): justa it was impossible {oread Schmitt without Marx's discovery ofthe working class and its demystifying consequences, twas equally inpossibleto read Marx without Schmitt's definition of the political asa form of struggle” However, for Tontl twas also true—contrary to Schmitt's harsh eritcism of all bourgeois forms of power—that itwas ‘only by aradical instramentalization of the bourgeois cultural ‘and politcal ground that a contemporary and more advanced project of antagonism to capitalism could be established It twas necessary to draw on what the great bourgeois thinkers had discoveredin the relations between the bourgeoisie anc capitalism, namely the role of crisis within the economic system fandthe ability of capitalism to internalize the collapse of the Tigi teleological foundations of modern polities by means of ‘culture that systematically tuned negativity into an engine Of ts own reproduction, Fo: Tront tbe latter dé not amount ‘simply to an economic mechanism of cause and effect, hut a political dynamic conceived within the extremely advanced and Sophisticated cultural outlook an modecnity established by the bourgeoisie Let the workers read Musil's great bourgeois novel instead of Mao's tts red book, Tront was suggesting n other words, let the workers appropriate the very weapon tha had so far been employed by the bourgeoisie as a means of achieving ther defeat: tho notion of negativity as an extreme form of, capitalist mastery "Adopting this point view miles away trom the vulgarizations of Marxism and socialist struggle that were very much in fashion atthe time, Tonti revisited the relationship between capitalism {and politics in terms ofa confrontation between a form of Continuity and a form of discontinuity. What was continuous was the growth ofthe economy under capitalist amination; what was discontinuous was the workors' struggle and the capitalist ‘counterstfugale. As Tront claimed, "Economic continulty and, political ciscontinuity togethor: this is the history of Capital” ‘This position ultimately led Tonti to take a critical postion toward Marx himself. For Tron, Marx had flled to arrive at full understanding ofthe relationship botween the economic choices, rf ‘nd the political choices that capitalism was forced to make in ‘rdar to preserve its own continuity against the pressure ofthe workors. Against the classical economistic Marxist reading, Teonti affirmed the autonomy of political decision-making as an advanced way to practice the citique of ideology By proceeding ‘along this "scandalous" path Tont recognized that capitalism ‘also evolved politically, through revolutions as well a other concrete projects of politcal autonomy. Faced with continual crises andthe constant threat posed by the workers, capitalism had acquired over the course ats history apolitical specificity that contradicted ts economic continuity Two historical events that ware key examples fr Tront of this politcal specificity ware Roosevelt's New Deal onthe one hhand, and Keynes's economic theeries, on the other, the latter of ich apparently had an important influence on the American presidents political handling ofthe biggest crisis capitalism had yet encountered, Inthe context ofthe New Deal, bourgeois culture discovered that the solution tothe Grest Depression lay notin the market but in politics. The socond edition of Tront’s Operaie capitate, publishad in 1971, thus concluded not with a discussion ofthe workers’ strategy of refusal but \with ts counterpart the political development af capitalism under Roosevelt during the 1980s, understood as the most advanced answer tothe then most avanced form of workers" struggle—the American working-class movement. According to “Tronti, workers’ struggles inthe United States, unlike those in Europe, were focused nat on revolution but on two pragmatic but politically consequential issues increased wages and decreased ‘working hours. As Trontl wrote: “tis fo this reason that working class struggles in America are much more serious than ours. They achieve many more things with less ideology: Difterant ‘rom English capitalism, which was more advanced in its economic theory, and fram German capitalism, whic was more ‘advanced inits cultural reflections, American capitalism wa, for Tronti, much sharper and more advanced in its rare but crucial ‘moments of institutional resolution of workers struggles, ‘These were the moments that revealed the political core ‘ofthe confit between the workers and capital. ForTront, the net step in the dovolopment ofa workers’ politics was to see the most durable and conerete forms of conflict as extending ‘beyond ideological fixations on revolution and also beyond capitalism's caunterrevolutionary response tothe workers. t ‘was fr this reason that Tront regarded American capitalism inthe aftermath ofthe 1928 Deprossion as analogous not tothe realized communism ofthe Soviet Union, but to the ‘extromely realistic Social Democracy of Germany as that form of ‘government took shape during the period of struggle Frm 1080 {0 1913. Inthe conflict between German Social Democracy and the capitalist state there was, according fo wont, such a radical avoidance of ideology thatthe system was able to undergo an ‘extraordinarily lucid development, even fone that was poltcally not so appealing, Even without a political theory, and perhaps because ofthis, Social Democracy was able, in a highly realistic way, to take the content ofthe workers struggle and translate itimmediately into palitics at the level of State institutions. ‘As such, iteconstituted its party politics na manner that went beyond Mae's critique of ideology, self-consciously adopting {tactical posture of compromise with its eval Forront this ‘ilitude paradoxically represented the highest and most effective fort of autonomous political decision-making, leaving Its mark not only on the workers! movement but also on the State, where the conflict between the workers and capitalists ‘was inetitutionalzed ‘With a controversial coup de theatre, thon, the hyper-Leninist ‘Tonti affirmed German Social Democracy asthe paradigm of autonomous politics. Lenin had proverbally disdained the petit-nourgeois reslism of Social Democratic politics, Trontifelt na senso of contradition in embracing it becaus as heimmediately emphasized, Leno's Bolshevik evolution ‘was nothing but a sequel tothe advanced political thinking represented by the extreme coalism of Germany's Social Democratic Party It was within the experience ofthis party that bourgeois politics wore reinvented as working-class polities. By going back t the polities ofthe working class in Germany and revealing that class's political autonomy, Tronti sought to demonstrate the transformative role ofthe working class within tne history of modernity “Thus, ithe theoretical contribution of Quadernisossi had ‘hoon focused on the concept of autonomy as aeitque of tochnological development, nd if Classe operaig had taken ‘autonomy to be a form of workers" initiative, Tont's subsequont roflections on the autonomy fhe political turned tha Operaist "approach to the level of State institutions, posing a Marxist= ‘Communist *counterplan” tothe one of liberal capitalism. ‘Around this hypothesis was launched tha final journal ot the Operaist movement, Contropiang. This represented the conclusion of Operaism's path toward working-class autonomy as a project dedicated to forging an alternative form of power to ‘capitalism, Founded in 1968 by Asor Rosa, Cacciar and Net Contropiano directed its theoretical ana historical reflections to the relations among capitalist development, working-class history and practice, political institutions, and culture However, because of Contropiano’s focus on the relationship between the working-class movement and political institutions ‘such asthe party, Negregistored his dlssent fom the group, leaving the journal aftr the rt issue, Negri disagreed with ‘Trontis idea ofthe autonomy of the political as Tront synthesized this position in his very rst contribution tothe journal, ‘concerning th instrumentalization ofthe Communist Party for purposes of workers" polities.” Although Negr's concept of autonomy initially came directly out of Tont', their positions hhad increasingly diverged ever since the experience of Clay ‘operaia. Ther difference contered specifically onthe political ‘orm ofthe workers’ autonomy. In order to understand ths efference better, let us go back {or moment to the two most significant editorials of Clas ‘operaia published in 196s, Tront’s “Lenin in Inghiltrra” and Nogr'’s “Opera senza alleati" (Workers without ales)" Tront articulated the problem ofthe workers’ political autonomy in terms oftwo distinct but at the same time interconnected levels of political action tactics and strategies. ita the strategie level an autonomous revolution by the workers remained the ‘oa, at the tactical one, as we have seen, Tronti's aim was the instrumentalization of party polities, understood by him as. oventually offering the workers an opportunity to take power: like any ether institution, he believed, the party wes capable 1lboing reappropriated by the workers as an “eld tactic fora “ new strategy” For Nogr, on tho other hand the workers had ho allies other than themeelves. Thus, Negr's concept ofthe Workers’ refusal was incompatible with any process of political Integration, fist and foremost integration within the Communist Party. Tronti, however, never conceived his politica extremism ‘outside the framowork ofthe party. It as political ction within ‘he institution, and eventually againstitas tne party made compromises against its own class interests, that constituted the very core ofthe Operaist philosophy. ‘More recently Tront has admitted that he thought of tho sroup around Classe operaia and Contropiano as a radical paltical ete acting outside the Communist Party but eventually taking it over and pushing itn the direction of more radical paltieal position” twas in line with this ultimate strategy thatthe Contropiano project was supposed to develop. In othor words, what was at stake in Contropiano was the development ‘ofa radical politcal clas culture whet, instead of taking {or granted the imminent revolution—the frst issue ofthe journal appeared just before the events of May 1968—opted {or longer-term, realistic counterplan to capitalism. For the ‘contributors to Contrepiano, acounterplan could not simply be ‘conceived as apoltical intervention, but also, and especialy, as acultural and theoretical reflection. twas in this context ‘hat the jouenal forwarded its editorial line through broad theoretical considerations on such diferent elds as philosophy, architecture, and urbanism, and through vast genealogical projects of reconstruction aimed at an aitemative history of bourgeois thought. This work was seen as a possibie cultural ‘weapon of the workers’ movement. Among these projects, tha mastimportant and significant, especially if soon as philosophical and theoretical background to Trontis autonomy of ‘the politica, was undoubtedly Massimo Cacciai's "Sulla genes! el pensiero negativo” (On the genesis of negative though.” ‘This essay had its premises in Caccla' reflections on the Weimar Republi’ leftist organizations. The Venetian philosopher argued thatthe main cause ofthe workers’ political ‘defeat in Weimar Germany between 1917 and 192 was the theoretical and practical inability of workers’ organizations like the Communist Party and the Social Democractic Party 6 lo understand capitalism's politically productive use of ‘sis Following Trent, Cacciari considored that it was the insttumentalization of ersis, not the institution of rules, that ‘onabled the bourgeoisie to cantolthe political arces of apitalism. This political contral took ts theoretical form in what CCacciari called “negative thought." Understood by Cacciari as a ‘orm of posteapitalism, negative thought uitimately derived from tv philosophies of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. |Woriginated in a double refusal on the one hand, a refusal of Romanticism, understood asa projection of the inaividval set into the worl on the other, refusal of dialectics, undorstood as ‘grand syethesis of opposites that resolved the contradictions ‘oxisting on te immanent plane of history. Romanticism was, anillusory celebration of contradictions staged as individual ‘autonomy, dialectics was a manifestation of the act of negation ‘wcuperated as a positive by means of a process of contradiction ‘and affirmation. It was because ofits capacity to absorb contractions asthe mechanism ofits continuous revolution {hat dialectics eventually won over an extreme form of refusal like Romanticism, For Cacciari this eapacity made Hegelian ‘ialectics the ideal political form ofthe bourgeois stat, Hegel's Stato was the form that had to resolve within tse all social and politcal contradictions. Caceiarl wrote: ‘Al, Raisin the determinations ofthe subjective and oboe Spr he penomenalogy of pital ife—allthese ane eincarated by he dialectal procass within yt Bt cours more‘etrat Mistry itso nalts modes (Tracton, rity, Progress inom med th svoletof an ane ‘conceptual ants bythe dialectical procs. In this way, istry Topas any foal character, ay woogie eubetie pratense inorder te Become tevery euetance otha unction ity between ‘thory an praxis ena new form of aman eltonsh Dialectics was thus the basis ofthe political establishment ol the bourgeois state, which saw tse as the only supreme historical synthesis, the only conceivable universal set of values, But with the development ofeaptalism and the increasing threat ‘lhe proletariat that emerged within I dialectics became the slofonsive postion ofan entity that was unsble to go beyand its ‘opposite and therefore opted fora dialogue with it Therefor, according to Caccian the traition of negative thought was “an attempt to challenge dialectics ror within, to challenge tho very form responsible forthe enduring power of bourgeois capitalism. Thistracition had transformed the negative—the internal opposition between bourgeois values and capitalism's tumultuous revolution, which destroyed inits wake any pretended cor presumedly established values—into the vary engine ofa culture that was finally ableto master capitalism by internalizing its deop causes. ‘According to Cacciai the high point of his process of negation was represented by Nietzsche's radical concept of the will to power and Max Weber’s notion of disenchantment. With Nietzsche, the Hegelian will oa dialectical synthesis, ‘of opposites was replaced by the unbalanced force ofthe illo pow, a force that shaped existence itself Inits act of forming the wor, the will te power didnot Involve search for justification in any nation af universality; rather, tabsolutaly Fefused any set of values, aesthoto, ethical, or religious. ‘Asa supreme form of bourgeois ideology, negative thought prepared the round for an acceptance ofthe state of permanent ‘instability brought about by capitalism. With Weber, bourgeois slisenchantment with eapitalism’s hegemonic power was ‘conceived as the only possibilty of bourgeois political pow ‘Weber thus translated Nietzsche's will to power into an ultimate acceptance o the bourgeoisie's destiny as total integration within the ion cage of capitalist development. For Cacciarl, however, itwas this disonchanted state of acceptance that constituted the bourgeoisie’ ideological ‘superiority As such, in order to penetrate this construct of ‘bourgeois poster within capitalism it was crucial to appropriate Its made of thinking. Cacclari writes: “Only by reading Nietzsche ‘and Weber together d we finaly discover how the tragic negativity can resolve itself positively and, at the present historical level reached by capitalism, as the only possible ‘condition ofthe functionality of ideology." This existential and cultural understanding of bourgeois ideology asthe engine of capitalism wes, in Cacclans view, a correct understanding ofthe irraversibility ofthe capitalist process, Accordingly, lis a Inansformation was a necessary p mastery of capitalist development For both Cacciari and Tron, then, the only possibility of ‘natonomy for the working class was the appropriation ofthe ‘nogative mode of bourgeois thinking, beyond all the ethical, ‘leological, and cultural resistance that leftist culture had loward this legacy twas within this spiet that Tont) nhs first article published in Contrapiano, “Estemisteiformisti" (Extremists and reformist), declared that neither reformist nor extremist politcal attitudes could be the waapan of the ‘working-class movement with respect tothe negative modus ‘operandi of capitalism since the latter had the capacity to absorb and finally resolve every cxsie within ts structures. Instoad, tho working-class movement had to embrace capitalism as a {orm of development, but on one crucial condition: that this lass finally assume the wil fo power over tet I capitalism ‘meant development, then the working class—the class of producers—must becomo empowered. As Tront writes: quisiteto the political ‘We hevet courageously assume the prince nt only 6s apts need the working las, atthe working cl alto needs aptalsm. Hat ony doth workers ead capital to achieve theicown poles! maturity, ut soy in geera azo neo capitals tothe sae oft ox development rode orm ot development the working lass ete der for {power These co‘leies maet boromethe nw condos ofthe From this postion, then, it became crucial to construct an «antagonist culture that could also envision the possibilty of Its own instittionalization. The project of Contropiane was therefore not s0 much centered ona poliical-economic eritique ot poltics but, on the contrary, on apolitical rtique of political ‘nconomy and its stubborn assumption of economics as the, Iimary determinant of historical development. Iwas time to "abandon the emphasis onthe ritique of ideology fer theory of power, one focused not only on politics but alsa on culture a the loyal of philosophy and especialy of architecture and the ety twas this perspective that rammed the participation, starting in 1963, ofa group of architectural historians gathered ry around Manfredo Tafuri at the IUAV (Istituto Universitario dt “Architettura ei Venozia), where Taturiin 1988 had founded the Istituto d Storia. Yet Tafur’s seminal assay "Per una critica dellideologiaarchitettonica” (Toward a critique of architectural ‘deology),© which was meantto be the institute's methodological blueprint and was inluded inthe same issue in which Cacciari published his essay an negative thinking, was still closely tied ‘to exactly what Contropiano intended to go beyond: the criique ‘of ideology. The eritgue af ideology was seen by Tronti,Cacciar, ‘and Agor Rosa as only a precondition for plitical work, not a ‘conclusion tot Forthem, the conclusion was what the ttle ofthe magazine was alrsady proposing: acounterplan to be tlaborated inthe form not ofa critiqua, but ofa theory. What the practice ofthe critique of ideology had taught the Operaists was how to demystify the way capitalist development had previously ‘been theosized by capitalists and sometimes by Marxists. Their ‘great discovery consisted inthe fact that what made capitalist ‘dovelopment sirong was notits continuity, but its discontinuity: ite ability to absorb the negative, that which at frst seemed to be its opposite or ts collateral effects. Capitalist cultural poities, ‘8 Taturi would 28, assuaged bourgeois anxiety through an internalizntion ofits causes" However, once this mechanism ‘was discovered, twas necessary for aculture antagonistic, ta capitalism to make use ofthis mechanism productively ‘and deliberately, even when such use would seem fo havea Fegressive horizan.A theoryof the use ofthe critica effects of capitalism was the complement tthe critique of ideology. Inthis sansa itis possible to seea discrepancy between ‘Tafur’s critique of arch tectural ideology and the project of political sutonomy elaborated by Tron and Cacciar. This. discrepancy is exemplified by Tafur's essay “Austromaraismo cita:"Das rote Wien,” (Austro-Maraism and the city: "red Vienna"). inthis contribution to Contropiano in whic Tatu sought to apply the eitique of ideology he had outlined in his 1968 book Teoriee storia dal architetture (Theories and history of architecture) (writen prior to his arrival in Venice and his close involvement with the Contropiane circle), the architectural historian produced a careful history of Red Vienna, analyzing the attempt by the Social Democratic municipality of Vienna plan 0 ‘nl bud new social housing between 1920 and 1980 end reading his episode in the context ofthe ideology of "Austro-Marxism." The latter was a movement of Austrian politcal thinkers who, Irom) thor socialist sition, sought to recalibrate Marxism with slomocrati politics and capitalist reality as the inevitable path of social development. Tafur's aim in his essay, however, was to go ‘beyond the “image” of these sacial housing projects built during the period of Hitlers Anschluss as a working-class fortress, ‘against Nazism in order to disentangle the relationships existing mong the thought of Austro-Marxst political thinkers (like Osto Bauer, Rudolf Hiferding, and Max Adler), the urban initiatives ofthe Vienna municipality, and the specific ormal language ‘adopted by the architects ofthe typical Red Vienna social housing blocks, including Peter Behrens and Karl Ehn, ‘Tafuri began his critique by observing that what was singular ‘about Austro-Marsism was ts distinction betwean Marcst ‘theory, understood by the Austro-Marxistsas scientific theory ‘ofthe laws of social development, and socialism, understood as an ethical principle, as ideology He thus emphasized the ‘Austro-Marxists'neo-Kentian approach te the political: for them, palitics was an act of modiation between two irreducible poles the cealm of necessity —that is, the “natural conditions atthe ‘economy—and the realm of duty —thats, the collective will to socialism, Socialism for the Austro- Marxist was "a moral ‘deal directly confronting tho objectivity ofthe capitalist orders tn Tatu’ view, this dstinction between the objectivity ofthe ‘economic andthe subjectivity of the politcal was responsible for the ultimate failure ofthe polltician ofthe Vienna municipality 10 produce real eorm, While the Austro-Marxists succeeded In having thor secial housing program implemented inthe nation’s capital, the dualism between economics and politics prevented ‘the Social Domocratie Party from undertaking any deeper reform ‘of the economic system ithad inherited from the bourgeoisie. Instead of following the cadical politcal path of Soviet Russia, ‘or the more structural reforms attemoted by the Soci Democratic Party in Germany, aver and is fellows remained concerned with finding a balance between socialist geals and ‘democratic consensus— indeed, with what in contemporary political terms might bo called a "thre way." This required of 0 the Austro-Marxistsahigh degree of Realpolitik vis-8-vie the praexisting capitalist organization ofthe city. Thus, building the ‘socialist city meant frst building the symbols ofthe new ety rather than cadically rethinking Its economic and organizational premises. Indeod, what was remarkable about Red Vienna was its [attempt to change the form ofthe ety without rst reforming the ‘economic program ofthe State. ‘This Viennose “detachment” of urban politics from economic planning was the exact opposite ofthat represented by Ludwig Hilberseimer's Groszstadtarchitektur at around the same time. Tafuri repeatedly asserted that Milborselmer’s theoretical proposal for a modern metropaiis designed element by element, ‘rom the sing cello the entite urban organism, was the only ‘madern urban project to reflect lucily upon the new totaling dimension imolicitin the capitalist integration ofthe city ‘Compared to this model, all ather attempts to design th city bymeans of delimited, architecturally determined forms appeared to Tafuri romantic and outdated, indeed "regressive ttopiae. Red Vienna represented aot a cohesive, organic, replanning of the city, in ls view, butinstead an archipelago of» urban artifacts — monumental Hofe(courtyards)—athich, while negotiating” their position inthe leftover spaces of the city, soughtto confront the existing city with exceptional monuments of thematic coherence. Thus Red Vionna was nothing more than an example of “daology realized” forTaturi the outcome of an turban mise-en-sedne rather than areal plan for change. twas. in light of his exasperation with ideology that Tafuriread such projects as the bulding blocks of Behrens forthe Winarskyhot —s (1904-26) and Ehn forthe Karl-Marx-Hof (1027-80), among, ‘thors, Although he incisively praised the formal qualities of ‘those buildings, even emphasizing their avoldance of gratuitous populist expressionism, Tafurl nonetheless found their epic architecture insufiient to construct a eal alternativeto the existing city. Not even thelr proposal of superblocks located in proximity tothe ity center —challenging the tendency to ‘uburbanization” represented by contemporary low-density workers’ settlements such asthe housing projects of Adal {Loos—appeared toTafuria valid alternativeto the capitalist reorganization of urban geography In Tront's view, however, Tafur's eriique of ideology in the context of his analysis of Red Vienna was too mechanical, too anchored inthe concopt of economic planning as the sole mode ‘of capitalist advancement" According to Tonti, what appeared lo Talurias a regressive utopia in Vienna was instead a rare ‘bility onthe part of the Sava! Democratic municipality ta axpoit the dire economic and political conditions of Austria after Werld Warland theroby to bogin to bullda socialist city from within but against the forms ofthe bourgeois city. We should not forget that although the Social Demecrats controlled the municipal ‘administration, they constituted the minority opposition partyin ‘the National Parliament. This situation madeViennaa “state of exception” in which the municipality was literally advancing urban policies in opposition tothe national ones, with ail the strategic politcal symbolism tha this situation implied. “The postulation of an archipelago of monumental artifacts ‘as an alternative to the master planning ofthe entire city was. ‘thus not simply a matter of clever compromises inorder to ‘achieve the best possible outcome—which for Tront would sil ‘constitulea manifestation ofthe autonomy ofthe palitieal—but ‘avery advanced urban design proposal. As arejection of the total planning ofthe capitalist cit, it incorporated this approach by means ofits very negativity, thats, ts irrecuciility toa Alalectical process, its production ofa site of permanent cri ‘and confrontation. inline with the theoretical premises of negative thought, the monuments of Red Vienna represente in sum, an expression ofthe will to frm, Cleatly contrasting with the existing city while at the same time presuming to be the “expression ofthe dominant class, these monumental impositions ‘were forTrontia coherent and "realistic™ way of dealing with ‘the “objective” coneitions of capitalism. Tatu onthe other hand, refused to credit this erucal acpect of Austro-Maraigm as applied tothe urban design of socialist Vienna, He took negative viow ofthe municipality's willingness to compromise, Its apparently backwaed urban polities its call fora new workers’ monumentalty, and its willto action and power within the fragmented context ofthe metropolis, without recourse to the abstraction ata general plan, of total programming of the Grasestad 2 Yet Red Vienna was a clear manifestation of what the COperaists were searching tor beyond the critique of ieoiogy ‘namely the autonomy of palitieal ation and its primacy with spect tothe capitalist evolution of society. For the Operasts, the autonomy ofthe political meant a careful tuning of Marxist politics tothe irreducible singularity of the places where those politics were applied, Not an overall pian for the city buteather {theory ofthe city was, in their view, the only concrete means to advance an alternative to capitalist planning I bourgeols power inthe ety was shaped by exceptions and singularities rather than systems and programs, these same exceptions and singularities ould potentially become forms representing the autonomous power ofthe workers, But such an approach required an entirely Ciferent reading ofthe city. I zequired an understanding of the city asa place of politcal formation—of contingencies, actions, and exceptions —rather than as a place based on abstract mechanisms of plansing and development. Its within this perspective that Aldo Roses conception ofan autonomous architecture firmly based on the idea of tho singularity of the cus rather than on tha science of planning came close to the Operaists’ conciusions—paradoxically enough, much closer ‘than dig Tatur's ertique of ideology. Rossi:The Concept of the Locus as aPolitical Catagory ofthe City “The construction ofan alternative the capitalist city and the proposal ct an autonomous architectural culture thus meant, ‘above al, the constitution ofa theory ofthe city, In the 19508 Italian architecture had bean mainly a mater of increasing iprofessionaismo(iterally, professionalism). [twas an attemptto Tinka sil artisanal dimension of design and building techniques with the urgent demands of modernization created by the rapid ‘aavance of postwar capitalist development. In the 19603, however, with the reemargence of paltical struggles and new social Canfcts, the necessity appeared i all disciplines, including ‘within the internal discourse of architecture and urbanism, to find away toward cultural and conceptual ronewsl. instead of ‘simply advancing in tandem with the further modernization of architecture and the city, the need for renewal became vise ‘aga demand fora theoretical refoundation of architecture in relation tothe city In tho 1980s and early 19606 the main protagonists ofthe Intellectual debate in architecture had been Bruno Zvi, an architectural historian, critic, and founder ofthe Movernent {or Organic Architecture (APAO); Giulio Carlo Argan, an art historian and author of several important contriautions ta the theory and historiography of modern architecture; ans Ernesto Nathan Rogers, an architect and loader of the BBPR office ‘and director ofthe prestigious magazine Casabella continua from 1958 to 1964. Their coatrbutions may be summed up asa cetical recuperation and cultural reinvention of the theoretical objectives ofthe Modern Movement, espacial asthe latter were represented by throo different directions: Frank Loyd Wright's borganie architecture (supported by Zev!), Walter Gropius's pedagogical program at the Baunaus (supported by Argan), and the ethical legacy of CIAM (supported by Rogers). "This recuperation was to some degree intanded by all hree theorists ‘8 apolitical project, aimed ata new cultural and Fistorical legitimation ofthe liberal trajectory ofthe Modern Movement as, the only path to @ democratic architecture and city. ‘Butt was against the ideological protensions ofthis nexus of liberalism, demacracy, and modernism thatthe refoundation of architectural theory would take form in the 1960s in the thinking ‘ofthe next generation, above all architects like Alco Rossi and Andrea Bren’, both born inthe 1980s and reaching intellectual maturity t this moment, For these new protagonists the cultural proposals advanced by intellectuals ike Zev, Argan, and Rogers ‘wore still bund toa reformist view ofthe relationship between polities and architectural thought. Thoy aimed at a recovery of the ‘madern ctyin terms ofthe negative political, cultural an formal Instrumentalities and ideologies that had been brought into boing by capitalist development: respectively, spatial humanism {5 a way of making the new forms of habitation more acceptable, new technologies asa way of distributing social equality, and ooxistence between the old and the new as a way of manifesting an othical pluralism, What these committed intllectuals did st not. and could no, put nto question was thelr own unwavering ttustin the continuing progress of democracy; they wore unable te question the structural foundations ofthis assumption. The basis of the postwar democratic city—both the real one and the ‘one imagined by these “liberal” architectural thinkers —was not simply the political economy of capitalism, howove, but alsoits ideological representations. The later especially took the form of, ‘rediscovered “humanism,” which became the mantra of socially engage intllectuals, ‘With the rhetorical abuse and exhaustion of professionalism and humanist in the early 1960s, and in the face ofthe advancing process of integration of social relations within the context of Contemporary capitalist development, there were, inthe view of the new generation of intellectual, two theoretical paths that appeared as potentially valid alternatives in architecture: onthe ‘ne hand, a political affmation ofthe autonomy of architectoral poiesisin the form ofthe reinvention of categories such as typology and place (Rossi); and on the othe, a critique ofthe ideology ofthe capitalist city as this ideology manifested iself inthe postwar recuperation ofthe Modern Movement and anew wave oftechnolagial avant-gardism inthe 1960s (Tafuri and Branzi. In spite of their sometimes radical differences, these two positions may be said to have converged in tho necessity of atheory that consisted natin the autonomy ofthe discipline, but inthe autonomy of apolitical subject committed to the formulation ofa cultural alternative tothe bourgeois domination ofthe capitalist city, Theory was alvays against ideology, 28, ‘Tronti affirmed in these years. I ideology coincided withthe blind beliet in progress, with faith in the evolution of society for the better theory, Tranti quoted fom Paul Kloe, was siehtbar ‘machen —making visible, that, the construction ofa clear analytical and politial point of view based on the solid ground of eonerete cancentual categories.” But in making visible what ‘as invisible, theory was also meant to go beyond the critique of ideology, to resolve itself inthe project. It was inthis sense thatin 1966 Ross, just after completing his book Larchitetlura dalla itt, declared ata eymposium organized bythe schoo! of architecture in Vonic 8 “Te creaion fa theory heft objective ofan architectural School pir allther ips ofresearh A sesin theo ethe tot portant moment feo frm of archer hina Urchitectal sega te eure inten shea bathe ding free inthe cateuum. ti remarabl how roy one encounters tharos {tener On unbleraross ot afew tng ons mate, Byer the most ale oes the most oustanding hail Above all ona otens hon thors nha acopt few pines ofa {heortcal ype become so weerten abou! tem ao avi ty ciserwore to ouaoihselatonhipbetweethetheary a Imaiog of arctectra athe nore can ony say hao some {hear e olyarationalatin of previous actin theefra it {ends tobe orn ae than athena therisk of appering nae iy propsel iste cutie atrusand appropiate theory arco bred mata denpn esata pa ta Having been deeply influenced by the writings of Antonio Gramsci espacially Gramsci reflections on the rle of intellectuals—whom tho political philosopher had defined as. Autonomous yet organically linked to party institutions and ‘thus responsible forthe creation ofits hegemonic forms of culture —Ross' joined the Italian Communist Party in 1956, a the time ofthe Twentieth Party Congress inthe Soviet Union and the invasion of Hungary, a moment when many leftist intellectuals ‘wore instead leaving the party. His intellectual formation betivaon 1954 and 1968 a a politically engaged architecture student and regular contributor to Rogors’s magazine Casabella ‘ontinuit included the writing ofa series of articles in which he ‘came to see architecture no longer as a product of masters but {35 an integral part ofthe evolution of urban phenomena.” Carlo ‘Aymonino, an architect who directed the design department ofthe IUAV in the 1970 and was close to Ross, has said that what characterized their generation was primarily the replacement of architectural history Intereted within an art- historieal perspective by urban history understood in relation +o politcal development." Ithis is so, then we may say that Rossi represented a paradigmatic case, and his pioneering ‘9ssays on Milanese neoclassicism and the architecture ofthe Enlightenment, his monographic writings on architects ike 6 Loos and Berens, and his case stuces of cites like Bertin, Hamburg, and Vienna aimed to establish a new, autonomous feld ff research in which architectural form was conceived as the primary means of constituting the paitcs of the modern city Rossi's hypothesis of autonomous architecture involved ‘more than the rejection af the naivté of functionalism, nor vias it just a cal for disciplinary specificity. was rather a Search fora rational language: a theory of form liberated from the sequence of formal styles in the service of the dominant bourgeois institutions His rediscovery ofthe architecture of fationalism was an attempt to cecuperate and reappropriate the legacy ofthe bourgecis city asthe form of the socialist city. Inhis rst important assay, entitled "Il concetto ditragizione nel neoclassicismo milanese” (The concept oftradlition inthe Architecture of Milanese neoclassicism),”he analyzed the lationship between the polities of the Napoleonic government ff Milan and its specific architectural language. This language had its formal expression inthe Jacobin rationalism of Ligh ‘Antolii's design forthe Foro Bonaparte. What Rossi saw in this architecture, and in other monumontal buildings and urban Interventions of Napoleonic Milan was the wil ofthe bourgeoisie toassert and represent itself asthe dominant nev class vi tis tho old aristocracy The architecture ofthe neoclassical city was thus for Ressi primary a politcal choice bythe Milanese ‘ourgecisie concerning the new institutions of power, who Understood them az means to define and realize its idea of pubic space. The bourgeois class thus gave expression tots existence and status through its appropriation and reinvention of the Classical tration In Ross's view, itwas time forthe socialist City to lkewiae construct its own tration by appropriating “and einventing the legacy offs predecessor, namely the city of ‘the bouraee Itwasin the context of hs eHfortto define the civic realism ofa socialist architecture that Rossi revisited the history of European bourgeais rationalism from the eighteonth tothe twontieth century —trom Boulléo to Loos. This project reached ite theoretical culmination in 1973 ith Rossi's organization and curatorshio ofthe Fifteenth Tisnnalo in Milan, which Rossi ddovoted to a survey on "rationalist architecture inthe twentieth = ‘ontury, both bofore an after Worlé War In contrast tothe ‘quneral design exuberance ofthe 1960s, Rossi reappropriated {ho traition of rationalism notin the fashion of he Modern Movement, asa normative and functional language, but rather isan affirmation ofa potentially autonomous architecture ‘9pposed to the hybrid and technologically heteronamous forms being churned out by neacapitalist urbanism at this time. In «commenting on his choice of references and examples for the Tiiennale, Ross! wrote: [W]e have here incorporated some toxts by and references to Ludwig Hilberseimer, Ado Belin, nd Hans Schmidt because thoy have a particular meaning within the lagacy ofthe Modern Movement. These texts are valid because they have confronted the contradictions of bourgeois architecture from a socialist perspactive.”” For Rossiit was Important to continue the modern tradition cof Hilberseimer, Bohno, and Schmidt not as a generic and ‘opon-endad movement, but as @ politcal and cultural project, a lendenza"—a recognizable architectural develapment aiming to-estabish an alternative to the capitalist city. Within this, ‘framework, what was needed, according to Ross, was nota ‘change of architectural style or urban form, but the elaboration of anew theoretical point of view on the city and architecture. fs ‘im should be the primacy of political choicas over technecratic ‘ones. Inthis sense, Rossi's elaboration ofan autonomous architecture coincided with his proposal ofa theory ofthe city capable of challonging what he saw inthe early 1960s a8 capitalism's new form of urban project: ts totalistie planning ‘ofthe city, with its concomitant celabration of technology, Fot Rossi, the premise of acontomporary theory ofthe city should be the city asa site of political choices —as a cancrate geography of places irreducible tothe totality ana continuity of urbanization. ‘A fundamontal testing ground for Rossi's theoretical, challenge to late-capitalist urbanity was his rst teaching experience asa tutor in the advanced course of urbanism ‘organized by the Olivet Foundation in Arezzo in 962, Conceived ‘aya specialized program for postgraduate students the Arezzo advanced course was conducted by important figures within the Ialian urban debate such as Ludavico Quaroni and Giancarlo «le Carlo. Among tho younger tutors, besides Rossi himself it \ncluced the participation of Paolo Coccarelli—an urbanist an the translator of Kevin Lynch's The Image of the Cty—and Tafur, _atthat me @ militant young historian an architec involved in ‘a nowly established collaborative of architects and planners Called AUA (rchitett Urbanist Associatl), which was inspired by the professional modus operandi of American practices ike Gropius's TAC and Skidmore, Owings & Merril The theme of the advanced course was the updating ofthe discipline in the face a the changes that had occurred within Italian cities and their surrounding territory under the pressure ofthe economic boom ofthe 19508 and early 19608 ane the accompanying massive immigration fom the poor south to the industrialized north. This disciplinary updating, underuriten bythe Olivet Foundation, \was carried out in the context ofa newly formed Center-Lett national coalition strongly focused on economic programming, {urban planning, and other new urban initiatives.” ‘Within this perspactive in which urbanism was understood {obo the horizon whareal the design disciplines converged, the two goals af the Arezzo course were, first, an elaboration ‘and discussion of now techniques inspired bythe tradition of town planning and, second, the conceptualization ofa"new turban dimension” beyond the traditional frm and confines ‘ofthe historical ity. Just one year before, 1962, Tafuth and Giorgio Plcinato, in an important essay published in Casabella ‘continult hae proposed the concept ofthe “eity-teritory ‘8 an Innovative framework within which to study the recent transformations ofthe urban landscape." The main emphasis of thelr contribution, in both thelr essay andthe course, was the paradigm of the territory as an open form created by the complex ‘neve network of transportation and other economic flows. ‘According to Taf and Piccinato, the primary consequence ‘ofthe new modes of industrial production was the increasing integration of the city andl countryside nto single entity, creating 2 new territorial scale and rate. ‘Tafur's and Plecinato's position in the Arezzo course ‘therefore emergee within tho institutional Let's consciousness, ‘ofthe increasing importance of now planning devices, ‘understood as rigorously “scientific” methods fr integrating ‘economic programming and territorial planning, Indeed, on ofthe poltial objectives of this Center-Left coalition and ‘especialy ofthe Socialist Party, was the rationalization of the ‘means of capitalist production and distribution inthe interests ‘of attaining amore balanced social system. This balanced capitalism received procise and categorical formal definition: that ofthe “ity-terttory* Viewed within the politcal framework ofthe increasing expansion ofeapitalism tothe entire social spectrum, this category of the eity-tretory—presented by many leftist planners and architects (including Tauri and Piceinato) 48 theultimate dostiny of urban evolution—was net golitically neutral. Underlying it was an affirmation ofthe mutated modes ‘of production created by the transition from a purely competitive toa more organized—oligarchie or monopolistic —form of capitalism. This new capitalism imposed the need for greater logistical coordination among che, centers af industria! production, ane the urban territory Iying betwaen them, Rossi's polemical stance against the category ofthe city: territory in both the Arezzo course and Larchitettura della citta became the basis of his proposal fr an alternative urban theory founded on tha idea of the focus. Interpreted inthe cultural’ ‘andl politiéal context in which he was writing, the focus must be understood as a concept aimed directly at countering the processes of capitalist integration. But batore further analyzing Rossi's position, lat us see how the radical Lett reacted to theoretical proposals suchas the cty-teritory as presented Inthe Arezzo course. A very interesting reaction was that ‘of Claudio Greppi and Alberto Pedra in an article entitled ‘Produzione eprogrammazione terrtariale” (Production and territorial planning), published inthe third issue of Quaderni ‘rossi Militants of Operaism and students at the school of architecture in Florence, Grepni and Podroli ‘the new concept ofthe city-territory represented a qualitative leap in capitalism's stratogic process of appropriation af the ‘ity. According tothe authors, the capitalist instrumentaization ‘of urban design had had the effect curing the frst half ofthe twentieth century of fragmenting and aisparsing the labor force throughout the territory, favoring regressive forms like the Garden City and the rural neighborhood. After World We the typical examples of italian social housing included the many complexes builtunder the auspices of INA-Casa, an institution testablished by the Christian Democrats to shelter "those who ‘work The plane of INA-Casa and other housing organizations ‘were likewise fragmentary and ineremental, and they continued tobe based on the tion ofthe sof-sufficient, decentralized neighborhood unit. With the advent of neacapitalism, however, ‘according to Grappi and Pesdrol the noed to better integrate the ‘workers—who were being transformed from a simple industrial force into a social one—with te forces of production caused the strategies of fragmentation to be supplanted by those of territorial coordination. In this sense, as Gropoi and Pedro ‘wrote, “the obsolete concept ofthe self-sufficient satellite city still reacting oa static relationship between city and countryside is placed by the cily-trritory, understood as Structure that organizes the totality ofthe urban teritery in order ta makoit more productive Greppi and Pedtolli accused the "young leftist theorists" of urbanism of taking for granted the eategory ofthe ciy-teritory ‘asa neutral and pragraselve representation ofthe human habitat "Behind the definition atthe city-teritory,” Grepoi and Pedro stated, “theres onl the attempt to integrate the labor force more within the development of capitalism, this time not through repression but through democratic institutions and ‘even through the batts af the Left for greater socal justice: ‘As such, the ony alternative to the idea ofthe city-territory, in their view, was nat its socialist reappropration, but rather an autonomous appropriation ofthe city as it wes. This autonomous “appropriation was identified by the authors not as anew urban planning project but as the taking over of alread established ‘working-class typologies The fortress-type buildings ‘consiructed by the Sacial Democratic municipality of Red Vienna ‘a¢a counter to the unlimited extension of th city, discussed ‘above, would be one example ofthis approach, Typologies were ‘concrete urban signs, according to Greppi and Peal the Fepresentation ofa concrete and precise political choice in ‘opposition to presumed “scientific” planning. Against the social integration ofthe capitalist city, democratically absorbed by the developing forces of production, Greppl and Pedrolii proposed city ofparts identified with a geography of working-class cy resistance to such integration. Thelr proposal was vey similar to both Operaism’s poitica eritique and to Rossi's architectural

    También podría gustarte