This essay presents a critical overview of Marxian scholarship addressing the interrelation between class and migration. Certainly, how migration affects the logic of exploitation is a central theme, as is the history of labor, xenophobia, strike-breaking and striking that involves migrants. We cannot do full justice to the rich variation of migration patterns across the globe and readily admit that our geographical situatedness (in the U.S. and Europe) heavily affects the material we select. Ultimately, though, we argue that the conceptualization of migration contributes to Marxian theory as it crystallizes tensions in and issues concerning the conceptualization of unemployment, the reserve army, exploitation and the capitalist/postcapitalist divide.
In pre-capitalist economies, as well as in the transition to capitalism, migration assumed central importance in articulating social relations and the mode of production. To begin with, transatlantic slavery was thoroughly organized by forced migration, which structured the production of cash crops such as tobacco, cotton and sugar in the Americas. The brutal exploitation of enslaved migrant labor power did not only render the slave mode of production viable, however. The profits generated from slavery were to prove crucial in financing the Second Industrial Revolution and spurring capitalist expansion in England (Williams 1944; Grelet 2001; Beckert 2014; Baptist 2014). The thread of migration weaves not only through the ways that slavery was deeply embedded in capitalism, but also in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.1
In the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe, human mobility drove the growth of cities that also occurred with a larger shift in the locus of production from farm to factory. Driven off the land in the process of primitive accumulation, displaced peasants played a key part in the consolidation of the capitalist mode of production (Marx 1976). Accompanying these processes, repressive measures such as the Poor Laws in England were instrumental in molding mobile populations, considered as vagabonds, into a docile work force (Polanyi 1944). In short, rural-to-urban migration significantly increased the supply of cheap labor power at the disposal of industrial capital, while dramatically transforming the socio-cultural fabric underlying relations of production.
Marx was among the first to show the implications of the bourgeois conception of liberty for capitalism and labor mobility. In discussing how the dynamics of capital accumulation brought with it a constant relocation of workers away from declining sectors of the economy towards expanding industries, he pointed out that civic liberties such as the freedom of movement and contract were crucial for these shifts to take place. On the other hand, if workers had not also been “free” in the sense of being dispossessed of the means of production to secure their livelihood, they would not have had to move in search of employment.
Building on these insights, migrants have typically been conceptualized in Marxian theory as part of the “reserve army of labor,” i.e., a geographically flexible pool of unemployed workers that capital can call upon as needed.2 The availability, size and composition of such a reserve army, however, depend (among other things) on how sovereign states regulate the mobility across their borders. Today, labor migration programs serve as an instrument to both facilitate and control capital’s access to the international labor market.3 Nevertheless, the constitution of a reserve army is far from straightforward, as it involves negotiating the interests of migrants, capital and the nation state (both sending and receiving).
The complexities pertaining to this encounter between capital and labor power in the context of migration regimes have been studied in considerable detail by scholars associated with the “autonomy of migration” approach. Inspired by the operaismo tradition within Italian Marxism (see Virno and Hardt 1996 and Wright 2002 for overviews), autonomist accounts of migration have argued that the process of migration under capitalism is characterized by a fundamental tension between the logic of mobility and the logic of exploitation. While labor migration constitutes a productive force that helps capital retain its dynamism, the mobility of labor power must simultaneously be controlled and harnessed towards the extraction of surplus value.4 Migration management policies devised by nation states play a crucial role in the mediation of this tension.5 At the same time, it would be a serious misperception to assume that the movement of people across borders can be fully calibrated through recruitment programs and border controls. The authorities oftentimes try to channel clandestine patterns of mobility devised by migrants through reactive measures such as the closing of legislative loopholes, the introduction of additional routes and technologies of border patrol, etc.6 But, as recent refugee movements demonstrate, an “excess” of irregular migration will always remain, proving metaphors of total control such as “Fortress Europe” illusory (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013; Bojadžijev and Karakayalı 2010; Papadopoulos, Stephenson and Tsianos 2008).7
The autonomist accounts of migration thus resist totalizing mechanics that pitch migrants as objects “pushed and pulled” by markets, narratives that have come to dominate mainstream economic models of migration. They still conceptualize migration as central to the encounter between labor and capital, but dismiss the often-used hydraulic metaphor of migration flows and a resulting (illusory) sense of control over the supply of labor in conjunction with the business cycle (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013).
We return to how migrant labor power is implicated in the logic of exploitation but is marked by specificity as well. Migrant workers share with all productive workers in capitalist firms a relation to exploitation and the extraction of surplus labor. But the migrant also constitutes a particularity to the extent that he/she experiences a different rate of exploitation. Thus, the universality of migrants’ human and worker rights have to be considered in conjunction with the reality of super-exploitation. To assert migrant human and worker rights underlines a universal equality, and yet, to see their super-exploitation, we have to be sensitive to the fact that there are structural differences, too.
Three prominent lines of argument have been developed to explain how capitalists can pay migrants below the value of domestic labor power. First, it has been argued that migrants’ value of labor power is lower (at least in the initial stages after arrival), since the reference point is still the lower costs associated with the reproduction of labor power in the country of origin. Secondly, the precarious legal and economic status of many migrant workers results in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis employers.8 Consequently, they cannot afford to turn down a poorly paid job even though they know it is unjust. This is particularly true for undocumented migrants who routinely experience wage theft, or are not paid legally mandated overtime or are paid less than they were promised. As migrants revise upwards their value of labor power the longer they stay in the destination country, the problem of wage discrimination deepens into unequal exchange. In the first case the wage gap between migrant and native workers results from their different values of labor power, and in the second case, the wage gap results from pure discrimination as immigrants settle into receiving countries.9
Thirdly, in what came to be known as the segmented labor market (SLM) approach, scholars described how capitalists create a smokescreen to divide immigrant and non-immigrant workers into separate, segregated labor markets for the express purpose of maximum surplus-extraction (Reich 1981; Gordon, Edwards and Reich 1982; Drago 1995). Drawing together institutionalists and Marxists, the SLM approach has been highly influential in theorizing racialized and gendered discrimination in the labor market by shifting away slightly from the question of unequal exchange, and towards the segregation of occupations. While unequal wages for the same job (i.e., pure and illegal discrimination) is still a problem, it pales in comparison to why some groups are absent altogether from certain occupations and labor markets. Contrary to Becker’s neoclassical economic model, which posited the eventual erosion of discriminatory barriers through market competition (Bohmer 1999), SLM theorists like Reich (1981) have shown that wage gaps could be maintained in the long run, resulting in lower average earnings for all workers and higher profit rates for capitalists.
Obviously, this raises the question of why capital has been so successful in pitting immigrant and non-immigrant workers against each other. While the history of Marxism abounds in declarations of international class solidarity, the fact is that the class antagonism between capital and labor has been overdetermined by intraclass ethnic and racial divisions.10 Writing on the Irish question, Marx diagnosed with characteristic fire:
England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who forces down the standard of life. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the poor whites to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money.... This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And that class is fully aware of it.
(Marx 1977 [1870], 169)
Numerous accounts in labor history demonstrate how wage competition, job segregation, and color bars in trade union organization have marred the relationship between im/migrant and non-immigrant workers. However, it would be too crude to argue that it was the “divide and conquer” strategy of capital that implanted racism in the minds of an unassuming working class. Race and class are distinct yet overdetermined social relations; neither is reducible to the other. Nor do capitalists or the proletariat form homogeneous interest groups that neatly align themselves on a particular side of the racial divide.11 The “capitalist class” (the same knowing English capitalist class Marx alludes to in the passage above) who maneuvered behind the curtain to foment racism, sexism and xenophobia does not exist as a homogenous class with homogenous interests, and neither for that matter do the workers.
The extent to which equal citizenship rights constitute not just a necessary but also a sufficient condition for overcoming discrimination against immigrants continues to be intensely debated within the Left. Balibar (2004) has argued that the reification of that division between the deserving citizenry and the rightless “sans-papiers” (the undocumented) created a new apartheid structure in Europe. Echoing the enthusiasm of the “new labor” activists and organizers, Balibar sees the sans-papiers as exemplary of insurgent citizenship, i.e., pushing Western democracy to be more inclusive and to live up to its full democratic ideals.
Neither did immigrant workers simply allow themselves to be instrumentalized as pawns in the class struggle waged in factories. There are numerous accounts of immigrant strikes in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, which were to usher in major changes in the relation between capital and labor. The famous 1912 strike in Lowell, Massachusetts, for example, brought together Italian, Polish, Hungarian, Portuguese, French-Canadian, Slavic and Syrian immigrants in what would be a massively well-known and successful worker strike organized by the Industrial Workers of the World. Women strikers held aloft signs saying “We want bread, but roses too!”—signifying that immigrant workers were both raising economic demands around wages and also forcing recognition of their basic humanity and dignity. In the 1960s and early 1970s, South European migrants staged several wildcat strikes against wage discrimination, poor working and housing conditions, and the complacency of white-dominated trade unions in West Germany (Bojadžijev 2008). More recently, a new wave of immigrant labor organizing in the U.S. has energized both theoretical work and the labor movement. Among the catalysts was a major 1990 strike by mostly Latino and undocumented janitors in Los Angeles (Milkman 2006). Out of this emerged a “new labor” movement, made up mostly of immigrants in domestic work, taxi and livery, construction, grocery retail and other low-wage industries in the service sector that were well outside the conventional manufacturing-based organizing models of trade unions. The permanent “precarity” characterizing many of the occupations with heavy immigrant concentrations, job insecurity (which sometimes could mean employment-by-the-day) and the potential status as undocumented immigrants, required different models of organizing, such as cooperation with immigrant community organizations and the staging of highly visible publicity campaigns against poor working conditions in renowned companies. The unorthodox and courageous examples of labor organization and resistance that have taken place in recent decades have inspired many to look to the new immigrant class struggles as a harbinger, and perhaps even the base, of a nation-wide renewal of the labor movement (Ness 2005; Davis and Chacon 2006).
In this closing section, we would like to point out that the interrelation between class and migration is not limited to capitalism or pre-capitalist modes of production. Rather, it extends to myriad postcapitalist12 practices in which migrants’ economic subjectivities are currently articulated. The Marxian tradition in which we place ourselves sees noncapitalist economic forms, organizations and class processes as already existing, rather than deferred to a post-revolutionary conjuncture (Resnick and Wolff 1987; Gibson-Graham 1996). In our examination of postcapitalism, we focus on one particular pathway of migrants and cooperativism and readily admit that this is only one of many directions to take in examining postcapitalism. Worker cooperatives offer workers one alternative means of securing their livelihood in a democratic workplace, where surplus labor is produced, appropriated and distributed collectively (Resnick and Wolff 1987; Wolff 2012). For this reason, we describe not only how migrants are participating in cooperatives today, but how in the U.S. they are in fact the dominant urban constituency that is forming, running and incubating other worker cooperatives.
In the United States, some of the most prominent worker cooperatives are run by immigrant women: WAGES (Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security) in San Francisco, UNITY Housecleaners in Long Island, and Si Se Puede in Brooklyn, New York. In the largest worker cooperative in the U.S., Cooperative Home Care Associates in the Bronx, 70% of the member-owners are Latina first- and second-generation immigrant women. Not only are immigrants themselves participating in these noncapitalist enterprises, they are enthusiastically trying to spread the model and sharing their own learning experiences by incubating other worker cooperatives (Bransburg 2011). However, cooperative structures vary widely, even when all members are immigrants, as demonstrated in at least one comparative case study of two Latina domestic worker cooperatives in which class dynamics varied by factors such as the organizational structure of the cooperative, the target consumer market (high-end or low-end) and by the immigration and social status of worker-members (Salzinger 1991).
Another point of intersection between migration and postcapitalism is through remittances. By sending money home to family members in the country of origin, migrant remittances are financing different economic practices, some capitalist and others not. One concrete project in the Philippines, the NGO Unlad Kabayan, established a “Migrant Savings for Alternative Investment” program, which pools funds from Filipina migrant domestic workers in Hong Kong in order to help build community enterprises in the migrants’ regions of origin (Gibson-Graham 2006). A portion of the remittance-financed projects are assuming noncapitalist organizational forms. Another case is of a Mexican worker cooperative (Mujeres Embasadoras de Nopales de Ayoquezco) supported by migrant remittances that has now extended beyond growing nopal (prickly pear) to starting the first industrial processing plant in Ayoquezco (Safri and Graham 2015). The workers (who are all female relatives of migrants and recipients of remittances sent home by migrant workers) grow, process, package, market and export nopal among other foods.
Ultimately, though, worker cooperatives may be one step towards a postcapitalist politics of migration, but only one of many steps required and certainly not without internal contradictions.
Such tensions and contradictions are at work in one of the most celebrated areas and examples of worker cooperatives in the Italian Emilia Romagna region of Italy, famous for the high concentration of worker cooperatives. A high-profile series of strikes from 2011–13 inside these cooperatives brought into sharp relief the different working conditions of immigrant and native Italian workers (Sacchetto and Semenzin 2016). A major point of contention turned out to be rooted in the practice of hiring immigrants as non-member workers, thus putting them in a disadvantageous position in terms of lower wage levels, higher work intensity and job insecurity—in effect replicating the segmented labor market described above as characteristic of capitalist relations of production. The now-hybrid cooperative composed of native member-workers and immigrant non-members transforms from being a non-exploitative enterprise to an exploitative two-tiered one. Native workers “deserve” to participate in economic decision-making over surplus, but immigrant workers are the excluded party bearing the brunt, proving that xenophobia and racism are not exclusive to any singular mode of production.
So often in political economy, the migrant is positioned as an object that is either pushed or pulled by labor markets, as super-exploited, deployed as a tool against native workers, and so on. These accounts, even perhaps with the good intentions of encircling the issue of exploitation, are characterized by problems. New Labor scholarship brings to our attention one of these problems when it describes how migrant-led labor movements and campaigns have proved historical turning points and may just be a backbone of the contemporary one as well. Operaismo has turned the full sophistication of its approach to the particular process of migration, showing that it is not reducible to a symptom of capitalism. The figure of the migrant exceeds the capacity of capitalism to control; it is an eruption of excess that cannot in fact be controlled in the last instance by capital and is daily seen in the global clandestine migration escaping borders everywhere. Migration is the unruly evidence of capitalism’s inability to totalize and tame, even as it is unmistakeably marked and cut by it.
We conclude by exceeding the capitalist frame itself, by pointing to the research area that we daresay is crucial but under-researched: how does migration interact with postcapitalism or anticapitalism? Even such a question requires further exploration—what is the difference between anticapitalist and postcapitalist? What political implications follow? We have pursued only one path, the cooperative connection, showing some of the potential contradictions that may emerge. Such issues require our most trenchant and insightful scholarship and contribute to answering to one of the most pressing political questions for Marxism: What is to be done?
1 Many researchers from the post-Althusserian tradition have argued that different modes of production (feudalism, slavery and even communism) are class processes that are current and exist simultaneously with capitalism. In using the term “pre-capitalist,” then, we describe points in history in which migration majorly impacted the course of slavery and feudalism. However, we also think that migration intersects with contemporary slave and feudal class processes, especially since undocumented migrants are often most vulnerable to these forms of exploitative conditions.
2 Historically, the function of a reserve army has also been occupied by women and racialized groups of domestic labor. Despite this functional similitude, however, it should be noted that racism, nationalism and sexism each construct distinct processes of othering. Hence, the capitalist instrumentalization of each category of reserve army involves different social and cultural antagonisms.
3 For a classic example see Castles and Kosack (1973) on worker recruitment in post-World War II Europe.
4 In Capital Marx gives a pertinent example of how the mobility of labor power constitutes a condition of existence for the production and capitalist appropriation of surplus value. Reminding his readers that “capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons” he recounts the situation of a Mr. Peel who:
took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of production to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides, 300 persons of the working class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, ‘Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from the river.’ Unhappy Mr. Peel who provided for everything except the export of English modes of production to Swan River!
(Marx 1990, 932–33)
5 While the economic conjuncture doubtless plays a significant role, the scope of such programs and the eligibility criteria attached are always overdetermined by socio-political considerations. In the case of imagined communities based on the principle of ethnic homogeneity (jus sanguinis) such as Germany, it has proven politically impossible to pass pro-immigration legislation despite intense pressure from employers facing labor shortages.
6 The argumentation here echoes the operaist position that industrial capital introduces new technologies of production in an effort to regain control over the labor process. A similar argument about the failure of migration policies can be found in Castles (2004).
7 Similarly, De Genova (2005) refers to the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border as a spectacle that is characterized by illusory control.
8 De Genova (2005) has studied the deportability of irregular migrants as a powerful threat strengthening the position of employers in the United States. In contemporary China, the residential permit system (hukou) in effect strips internal migrants of their citizenship rights if they leave their birthplace without the requisite passes. Their precarious situation (lower than legal minimum wages, no access to social services, dangerous working conditions, being subject to arrest and detention) in many ways parallels that of undocumented immigrants in other countries.
9 In both cases, the employer of migrants experiences relative expansion of value, by shrinking the portion of the day devoted to necessary labor and expanding the portion of the day devoted to the production of surplus. This is not to say, however, that employers of migrants do not also undertake strategies aimed at absolute expansion of surplus, as when they extend the working day by employing immigrants, especially undocumented ones. Migrants go from experiencing equal exchange because they first arrive with a value of labor power closer to the one in the country of origin, even if it is a lower one than the receiving country. As they revise their standard of living the longer they stay, but still continue to receive lower wages due to wage discrimination, then the migrants experience unequal exchange, since their value of labor power increases but the wages received do not.
10 From the Chinese immigrant workforces used to break railroad strikes in the U.S. (Briggs 2001) to Moroccan workers being hired by French coal mines after strikes in the 1960s, the examples are too numerous to list here. Using im/migrant workforces as strike-breakers, capitalists have deployed and continue to employ immigrant workers strategically to erode the bargaining power of non-immigrant workers over wages and working conditions all over the world (Bacon 2014). Employers are also not above scapegoating immigrant workers for problems that the employers themselves have helped generate (Davis and Chacon 2006).
11 In the apartheid era in South Africa, for example, the interests of capitalists facing an international embargo differed starkly from the interests of white trade unions. Under the fascist regime in Germany, Jewish capitalists themselves became the target of anti-Semitism.
12 A postcapitalist vision should not be understood as coming after capitalism, or denying its existence, but instead as enacting political and economic forms that are not capitalist (Gibson-Graham 1996, 2006; Mance 2007). The prefix of “post” stands more for a different way of perceiving the economy and economic development that does not focus on capitalist growth as the exclusive means by which well-being is improved (Safri 2015).
Bacon, D. 2014. “Why Is This Farm Using Guest Workers as Strike Breakers?” The Nation, May 2.
Balibar, E. 2004. We the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baptist, E. E. 2014. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
Beckert, S. 2014. Empire of Cotton: A Global History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Bohmer, P. 1999. “Marxist Theory of Racism and Racial Inequality.” In Readings in Black Political Economy, J. Whitehead and C. K. Harris, eds. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Bojadžijev, M. 2008. Die windige Internationale: Rassismus und Kämpfe der Migration. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Bojadžijev, M. and S. Karakayalı. 2010. “Recuperating the Sideshows of Capitalism: The Autonomy of Migration Today.” e-flux 17 (June). http://www.e-flux.com/journal/recuperating-the-sideshows-of-capitalism-the-autonomy-of-migration-today/ (accessed August 6, 2016).
Bransburg, V. 2011. “The Center for Family Life: Tackling Poverty and Social Isolation in Brooklyn with Worker Cooperatives.” Grassroots Economic Organizing Newsletter 2(8). http://geo.coop/node/636 (accessed August 6, 2016).
Briggs, V. M., Jr. 2001. Immigration and American Unionism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Castles, S. 2004. “Why Migration Policies Fail.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(2): 205–227.
Castles, S. and G. Kosack. 1973. Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. London: Institute of Race Relations.
Davis, M. and J. Akers Chacon. 2006. No One is Illegal. Chicago: Haymarket Press.
De Genova, N. 2005. Working the Boundaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Drago, R. 1995. “Divide and Conquer in Australia: A Study of Labor Segmentation.” Review of Radical Political Economics 27(1): 25–70.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gibson-Graham, J. K., S. A. Resnick, and R. D. Wolff, eds. 2000. Class and Its Others. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gordon, D., R. Edwards, and M. Reich. 1982. Segmented Work, Divided Workers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grelet, S. 2001. “The Art of Flight: An Interview with Yann Moulier-Boutang.” Rethinking Marxism 13(3/4): 227–235.
Mance, E. 2007. “Solidarity Economics.” In What Would It Mean to Win?, Turbulence Collective, ed., 66–73. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Marx, K. 1976. Capital, Volume 1. London: Penguin Books.
Marx, K. 1977 [1870]. “Letter to Meyer and Voght.” In Writings, Volume 3, 169. New York: Vintage.
Mezzadra, S. and B. Neilson. 2013. Border as Method. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Milkman, R. 2006. L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of the U.S. Labor Movement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ness, I. 2005. Immigrants, Unions and the New U.S. Labor Market. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Papadopoulos, D., N. Stephenson, and V. Tsianos. 2008. Escape Routes: Control and Subversion in the 21st Century. London: Pluto Press.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Reich, M. 1981. Racial Inequality. Princeton: Princeton University.
Resnick, S. A. and R. D. Wolff. 1987. Knowledge and Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, B. 2011. “Exploitation, Appropriation, and Subsumption.” Rethinking Marxism 23(3): 341–351.
Ruccio, D. 2011. “Cooperatives, Surplus, and the Social.” Rethinking Marxism 23(3): 334–340.
Sacchetto, D. and M. Semenzin. 2016. “Workers’ Cooperatives in Italy: Between Solidarity and Autocratic Centralism.” In Social Economy in China and the World, N. Pun, B. Hok-bun Ku, H. Yan, and A. Koo, eds., 135–155. New York: Routledge.
Safri, M. 2011. “Worker Cooperatives: A Class Analysis.” Rethinking Marxism 23(3): 329–333.
Safri, M. 2015. “Mapping Noncapitalist Supply Chains: Toward an Alternate Conception of Value Creation and Distribution.” Organization 22(6): 924–941.
Safri, M. and J. Graham. 2015. “International Migration and the Global Household: Performing Diverse Economies on the World Stage.” In Making Other Worlds Possible, G. Roelvink, K. St. Martin, and J. K. Gibson-Graham, eds., 244–268. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Salzinger, L. 1991. “A Maid by Any Other Name.” In Ethnography Unbound, M. Burawoy, ed., 139–160. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Virno, P. and M. Hardt, eds. 1996. Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Williams, E. 1944. Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Wolff, R. D. 2012. Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Wright, S. 2002. Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism. London: Pluto Press.