Tronti and Panzieri in Quaderni Rossi: Operaism

Introduction

Operaism, or "workerism," emerged in Italy as a radical intellectual and political tradition that reinterpreted Marxist analysis of class struggle under postwar capitalism. At its core was the desire to overcome the orthodox dogmas of traditional leftist parties and trade unions, which, according to operaismo theorists, had lost connection with the real experience of the working class [Bracke, 2013]. This tradition, born in the late 1950s and early 1960s, offered a fundamentally new perspective on the role of the working class, viewing it not as a passive object of capitalist exploitation but as an active subject whose struggle and resistance shape the very development of capital.

The philosophical framework of operaism is deeply rooted in a critical reexamination of Karl Marx's works, especially his "Grundrisse" and "Capital," with an emphasis on the autonomy of the working class and its capacity for self-organization [Mudu, 2015]. Unlike traditional Marxism, which often regarded capital as the driving force of history, operaismo proposed a "Copernican revolution," asserting that it is precisely the struggle of the working class that compels capital to constantly restructure and innovate [Tronti, 2016]. This inversion of perspective, where "capital follows the working class," became a cornerstone of operaismo thought, highlighting the primacy of worker resistance over capitalist planning.

At the center of this intellectual ferment was the journal Quaderni Rossi ("Red Notebooks"), founded in 1961 by Raniero Panzieri. The journal became a platform for developing innovative ideas that formed the basis of operaism before these concepts gained wider dissemination beyond Italy and were reinterpreted in the Anglophone academic milieu. It was here that Mario Tronti and Mario Panzieri, alongside other thinkers, laid the foundation for the analysis of "worker inquiry" (inchiesta operaia), the "social factory," and the "refusal of work," offering a radical critique of capitalist production and traditional forms of political organization. Our lecture will focus on their contributions to Quaderni Rossi and the development of operaism in its original Italian context, prior to its reception and transformation in the English-speaking world.

Detailed Exposition

The Role of Intellectuals and the Nature of Political Intervention in the Labor Movement

What is the true role of the intellectual in the revolutionary movement? Should they be merely an external observer analyzing class struggle, or an active participant shaping its course? This question, seemingly eternal in Marxist thought, became a stumbling block for early Italian operaism, dividing its leading theorists and defining different trajectories for the movement.

Mario Panzieri, one of the founders of Quaderni Rossi, saw the role of the intellectual primarily in theoretical research and analysis, which should serve as the basis for political action [Guidali, 2021]. He argued that the political party is an educator who itself needs education (un educatore che devere essere educato), where class struggle serves as its training ground [Carmichael et al., 2019]. For Panzieri, a deep understanding of capitalist relations, their dynamics, and forms of worker resistance was paramount. He believed that only through careful analysis based on "worker inquiry" (inchiesta operaia) could the true needs and potential of the working class be revealed, avoiding the imposition of ready-made ideological schemes.

However, while Panzieri emphasized analysis, Mario Tronti, another key figure of operaism, leaned towards more direct political intervention and activism [Filippini, 2011]. His approach can be characterized as a shift from "worker inquiry," which implies the necessity of analyzing the situation, to "attack on the capitalist system" [Pizzolato, 2011]. Tronti did not deny the importance of theory but believed it must be immediately translated into practice, becoming a tool for organizing and mobilizing the working class. For him, intellectuals should not merely describe reality but actively change it, acting as catalysts for revolutionary processes.

This dichotomy between analysis and direct action reflected a fundamental tension within Quaderni Rossi. Panzieri, being more academically oriented, aimed to create a deep theoretical foundation capable of rethinking Marxism under postwar capitalism [Müller, 2012]. He criticized traditional Marxist theories for their inability to adequately comprehend new forms of capitalist development and worker resistance [Mancini et al., 2017]. For him, the intellectual's task was to "read" capital from the working class perspective, identifying its internal contradictions and points of possible rupture.

Tronti, on the other hand, was more pragmatic and focused on immediate political results. He believed capitalism itself is a political project, and thus the response must also be political [Tronti, 2016]. In works such as "Workers and Capital," he developed the idea that capital not only exploits labor but actively shapes it, attempting to subordinate all aspects of the worker's life. Consequently, the intellectual's task is not just to expose this exploitation but to indicate ways to overcome it through active resistance.

Differences in Panzieri's and Tronti's approaches can be illustrated by their attitudes toward "worker inquiry." For Panzieri, it was an empirical research method allowing understanding of real working conditions and forms of worker resistance, for example, at FIAT factories in Turin [Grigera et al., 2011]. He saw this process as an opportunity for intellectuals to learn from workers rather than teach them. It was a way to bridge the gap between theory and practice, between intellectuals and the working class.

Tronti, while acknowledging the value of "worker inquiry," saw it only as a starting point for a broader political strategy. He was convinced that after studying working conditions and forms of resistance, one must move to direct political intervention aimed at undermining the capitalist system [FILIPPINI et al., 2012]. For him, the "refusal of work"—a concept he developed—was not merely passive resistance but an active form of political struggle capable of destabilizing capitalist production.

These divergences ultimately led to a split within Quaderni Rossi and the formation of Classe Operaia, a journal led by Tronti. While Quaderni Rossi under Panzieri remained a more analytical and theoretical publication, Classe Operaia focused on more direct political action and mobilization [FILIPPINI et al., 2012]. This split highlighted deep disagreements about how intellectuals should engage with the labor movement: through careful analysis and education or through direct political leadership and activism.

While Panzieri sought to create a new theory capable of explaining changes in capitalism and the working class, Tronti was more interested in the immediate application of this theory to organize struggle. He believed capital constantly adapts to worker resistance, and thus the labor movement must be equally dynamic and capable of rapid response. This idea that "capital follows the working class" became central to operaism, inverting the traditional Marxist understanding where the working class was seen as an object of capitalist development.

The role of intellectuals in operaism was dual: on one hand, deep theorists striving to rethink Marxism and understand new forms of capitalist exploitation; on the other, active participants ready for direct political intervention. This tension between analysis and action, theory and practice, became a defining feature of early operaism and laid the groundwork for further debates on the role of the party and the autonomy of the working class, which we will examine in the next subsection.

Attitude Towards Traditional Labor Organizations (Trade Unions, Communist Party)

Having discussed the role of intellectuals in operaism, it is now necessary to understand how these intellectuals and their ideas related to existing forms of the labor movement, particularly trade unions and the Italian Communist Party (ICP). Operaism arose as a critical reaction to traditional leftist movements and trade unions in Italy [Mecchia et al., 2007]. This was not merely a theoretical divergence but a deep conflict over strategy, tactics, and, most importantly, the understanding of the working class itself.

Post-World War II Italy presented a unique landscape for the development of Marxist thought. Communism thrived not only as a party structure but also as a form of political theorizing that, while distancing itself from Moscow, did not necessarily break with Leninism or, broadly, with a insurgent approach to politics [Müller, 2012]. The ICP was the largest communist party in the West, and Eurocommunism in Italy was most influential, approaching real state power [Müller, 2012]. However, despite this influence, operaismo theorists saw the ICP and affiliated trade unions not as allies but rather as obstacles to genuine worker autonomy.

Mario Panzieri, one of the founders of Quaderni Rossi, initially sought dialogue and influence "from within" traditional labor organizations [Guidali, 2021]. His political goal was to effect a shift "inside" these structures using critical Marxist analysis to reorient their strategies [Müller, 2012]. Panzieri believed that despite bureaucratization and reformism, these organizations still retained potential for revolutionary change if their intellectual leadership could adequately grasp the new realities of capitalism and worker resistance. He saw his task as restoring Marxist theory's critical edge, which he believed was lost in official party doctrine.

However, not all shared this moderate position. For some figures shaping the Quaderni Rossi milieu, the stance of both the communist party and trade unions was unacceptable, leading to a radicalization of their critical attitude toward existing forms of labor organization [Filippini, 2011]. Mario Tronti, for example, represented a more radical wing insisting on a complete break with traditional structures. He and his supporters believed that the ICP and trade unions had become part of the capitalist system, acting as intermediaries that more often restrained than stimulated worker struggle.

Tronti argued that traditional organizations, instead of being the vanguard of the working class, had become instruments of "capitalist planning," integrating labor into the system and suppressing its autonomous expressions [Tronti, 2016]. In his famous "Copernican turn in Marxism," the starting point for analyzing social reality and the history of capitalism had to be the struggle of the working class, not the laws of capital development [Tronti, 2016]. This meant workers should not wait for directives from above but shape their own struggle, with intellectuals merely helping articulate it.

Differences between Panzieri and Tronti reflected fundamental disagreements within operaism regarding the role of the party and working-class autonomy. While Panzieri, despite criticizing the ICP, still saw the possibility of its transformation, Tronti insisted on creating entirely new forms of organization fully autonomous from traditional institutions [Guidali, 2021]. This split ultimately led to Tronti and his allies leaving Quaderni Rossi and founding the journal Classe Operaia [Tronti, 2016].

Trade unions also faced harsh criticism from operaism. They were seen as structures that, instead of representing workers' interests, often acted as agents of social control, making agreements with capital that limited worker struggle and maintained the existing order [Mecchia et al., 2007]. Operaism supported workers' councils rather than top-down trade unions and studied workers' lives at their workplaces during the era of so-called neocapitalism [Guidali, 2021]. This was especially evident in the context of "wildcat" strikes and clashes with police in Turin during the "Hot Autumn" of 1969, often conducted independently of and against the policies of the ICP and trade unions [Mecchia et al., 2007].

Operaism, especially its radical wing, rejected the idea that traditional labor organizations could be effective instruments of revolutionary change. They believed these organizations had become too integrated into the capitalist system and were incapable of adequately responding to new forms of exploitation and resistance. Instead, they called for working-class autonomy and the creation of new, self-organizing forms of struggle that could directly confront capital. This aspiration for autonomy and direct action became a key element of operaism thought, which sought to understand the worker not as an object of party politics but as an active subject capable of self-emancipation. This understanding of the working class as an independent force, not a passive object, leads us to the concept of the "mass worker," which became central to operaism analysis.

The Concept of the "Mass Worker" and His Role in Capitalism

If traditional leftist organizations, as we have seen, often proved unable to adequately respond to changing conditions of class struggle, operaism proposed a fundamentally new view of the worker as an active subject rather than a passive object of capitalist exploitation. It is in this context that the concept of the "mass worker" (mass-worker) emerged and developed, becoming a cornerstone of operaism thought. This new type of worker, arising in conditions of increasing automation and standardization of production, became the central protagonist for Quaderni Rossi, especially in Italy [Pizzolato, 2011].

The mass worker differed from the "skilled worker" of the early 20th century, who possessed specific skills and was often organized in craft unions. The new industrial proletariat, by contrast, consisted of workers whose skills were easily replaceable and whose labor was standardized. This led to changes in forms of resistance and organization. Instead of traditional demands related to preserving qualifications or improving conditions for a specific trade, the mass worker put forward more general demands concerning wages, working hours, and control over the production process as a whole.

Operaism theorists, particularly Alcquati, emphasized that traditional leftist parties and trade unions were unprepared for these changes. They failed to recognize or utilize the potential of new trends in the labor movement [Pizzolato, 2011]. Their strategies and organizational forms were oriented toward the old type of worker, making them ineffective under the new capitalist organization of labor. This created a vacuum that operaism sought to fill with its analysis and political practice.

The concept of the "mass worker" was not merely a description of a new social phenomenon but also a political tool. It allowed operaism theorists to rethink the nature of class struggle, shifting the focus from political parties and trade unions to the immediate autonomy of the working class. For Tronti, for example, capital not only exploits labor but constantly reacts to worker struggle, attempting to incorporate or suppress it. In this sense, "capital follows the working class" is an inversion of traditional Marxist understanding, where the working class is seen as a reaction to capital.

This idea that the working class is the driving force and capital merely reacts was revolutionary. It meant that worker resistance is not simply a response to oppression but itself shapes the development of capitalism. For example, wage increases achieved through strikes force capital to invest in automation to reduce labor costs. Worker struggle thus becomes not only a factor of distribution but also a factor in the development of productive forces.

However, as noted by Neis, in some later interpretations, especially in post-operaism, this idea of the working class's "self-valorization" can lead to a "monism of positivity," where everything is perceived as an expression of the multitude's internal power. In such an approach, according to Neis, real evidence of domination and suffering is ignored, and capital is presented merely as an expression of the multitude's deep power. This, in turn, deprives the left of the possibility to take a critical stance, as there is no external viewpoint relative to the singularity of the multitude and the Empire [Pitts et al., 2020].

Nevertheless, for early operaism theorists like Panzieri, the mass worker was not just an abstract category but a living subject whose actions and resistance required careful study. Panzieri criticized traditional Marxist theories for their inability to adequately comprehend new forms of capitalist development and worker resistance. He emphasized that technological innovations introduced by capital to enhance control simultaneously create new opportunities for resistance.

In this context, the concept of "refusal of work" (refusal of work), developed by Tronti, becomes especially significant. It is not merely passive unwillingness to work but an active form of resistance that undermines the capitalist logic of productivity. Refusal of work can manifest in sabotage, slowdown, absenteeism, or even outright refusal to perform certain tasks. It was a way to return control over time and energy to the working class, challenging the capitalist imperative of constant production growth.

Developing this idea, Tronti introduced the notion of the "social factory," expanding the analysis of exploitation beyond the production shop floor. He argued that capitalist relations penetrate all spheres of social life, not just production [Gray, 2022]. The entire society becomes a kind of factory where labor, even outside direct production processes, is used for the reproduction of capital. This meant that working-class struggle is not confined to the factory walls but extends to all aspects of life: housing, education, healthcare.

This expanded concept of class struggle, encompassing not only production relations but also social reproduction, became one of operaism's most influential contributions. It allowed a new perspective on the role of women in the labor movement, the struggle for housing and social services, and other forms of resistance traditionally not considered part of class struggle.

However, despite all its innovations, operaism, especially in its later forms, faced criticism for its "immanentist" approach. As Pitts and Craddas note, Negri, making a "Spinozist turn," sought to free himself from the dialectics and teleology of traditional Marxism [Pitts et al., 2020]. However, in their view, this break was incomplete, as Negri retained commitment to the "fetters theory" of historical development, where productive forces are constrained by relations of production, a fundamental tenet of orthodox Marxism.

The concept of the "mass worker" and related ideas of "refusal of work" and the "social factory" became powerful tools for analysis and political mobilization. They allowed operaism theorists to go beyond traditional conceptions of the working class and class struggle, offering a more dynamic and comprehensive understanding of capitalism. However, like any theoretical construct, it was not free from internal contradictions and subsequent criticism, especially regarding its ability to maintain critical distance from the object of analysis. These complexities and the need for a deep understanding of real conditions of workers' lives and struggles led operaism theorists to develop a unique methodology known as "worker inquiry."

Methodology of Working-Class Research: "Worker Inquiry" (inchiesta operaia)

Having discussed the formation of the concept of the "mass worker" and his role in capitalist production, a natural question arises: how exactly did operaism propose to study this new subject and his struggle? Traditional sociological methods generally served the purposes of capitalist planning rather than working-class emancipation. This is why "worker inquiry" (inchiesta operaia) occupied a central place in the methodology of Quaderni Rossi—an approach aimed at bridging the gap between theory and practice, between intellectuals and workers.

Mario Panzieri, one of operaism's key theorists, asked whether it was possible to create a sociology of labor and industry that would serve not technological development but workers' struggle [Carmichael et al., 2019]. He believed that traditional sociology, even if critical, often remained a tool of bourgeois analysis. Panzieri argued that we can use [bourgeois] sociology and criticize it for its limitations, just as Marx did with classical political economy [Panzieri]. This did not mean a complete rejection of existing tools but required their radical rethinking and subordination to new political goals.

Unlike the Gramscian approach, where the party acted as "enlightener" and "organic intellectuals" worked under its guidance, Panzieri saw the party as an educator who itself needs education (un educatore che devere essere educato), where class struggle is its place of learning [Panzieri]. For him, "worker inquiry" was not just data collection but a powerful tool of "serious political preparation" [Panzieri]. This emphasized the active role of workers in the process of knowledge production and theory formation, rather than passive reception of knowledge from intellectuals.

One of the most vivid examples of this approach was the "co-research" (conricerca) developed by Romano Alquati. Alquati, a member of the Gruppo d’Unità Proletaria founded by Montaldi, refined this method, which involved "co-research" between intellectuals and workers [Bologna, 2003]. Here intellectuals acted not as experts bringing ready answers but as catalysts helping workers articulate their own experience and realize their collective power. The goal was not just to learn about workers but to learn with workers so that their knowledge could become the basis for political action.

"Worker inquiry" in the operaism sense included not only collecting "hot" data directly from factories but also analyzing the restructuring of production processes, critically assessing management strategies and union demands, as well as documentary analysis of corporate documents and media coverage [Carmichael et al., 2019]. It was a comprehensive approach aiming to shed light on the factory, focus the lens, and produce a photograph in which production relations would stand out with striking clarity [Tronti, 2016]. Such a method allowed revealing hidden aspects of exploitation and resistance that remained unnoticed in traditional studies.

Panzieri emphasized that changes in the working class must be considered in light of the reconfiguration of relations established between workers and technicians, and the emergence of new roles and class compositions [Panzieri]. This meant the methodology had to be flexible and constantly adapt to changing conditions of capitalist production. It could not be static since the object of study—the working class—was itself in constant motion and transformation.

It is important to note that operaism's "worker inquiry" differed from traditional sociological surveys. It did not strive for objectivity in the positivist sense but rather for subjective, yet collectively interpreted knowledge that could serve as the basis for political struggle. It was a tool enabling workers not only to understand their situation but also to formulate their demands, develop resistance strategies, and ultimately change their reality.

In this context, Antonio Negri, although developing his ideas somewhat later, also emphasized that "struggle shapes the face of institutions." This resonates with operaism's idea that it is precisely the activity of the working class, its resistance and self-organization, that are the driving forces of history, not passive waiting for changes dictated by economic laws or party directives. Productive forces, or the "multitude," as Negri calls them, do not simply submit to relations of production but actively shape them and ultimately are capable of overturning them [Pitts et al., 2020].

"Worker inquiry" thus became not merely a method of data collection but a political act aimed at deconstructing capitalist knowledge and creating an alternative, worker-centered perspective. It was intended not only to reveal new forms of exploitation but also to discover new forms of resistance arising in response to these changes. This approach, based on empirical research and joint interpretation, became a cornerstone of operaism theory and practice, allowing constant rethinking of the working class's role under developing capitalism. However, despite shared methodological principles, disagreements existed within Quaderni Rossi about how exactly these studies should be conducted and what role they should play in political struggle, ultimately leading to the movement's split.

Causes of the Split within Quaderni Rossi and the Formation of Classe Operaia

The methodology of "worker inquiry" (inchiesta operaia), discussed earlier, became a cornerstone for Quaderni Rossi, but its application and interpretation ultimately led to deep disagreements within the group, culminating in a split and the emergence of the new publication Classe Operaia. While Panzieri saw inchiesta operaia as a tool for deep analysis and understanding of the working class, for Tronti and his supporters it was more a springboard for immediate political intervention. Differences in tactics and the degree of political intervention became the key factor dividing Quaderni Rossi intellectuals [Filippini, 2011].

The immediate catalyst for the split was the July 1962 events at Piazza Statuto in Turin, when a strike by metalworkers, mostly FIAT employees, escalated into clashes with police and even the occupation of the headquarters of the Italian Labour Union (UIL). The leadership of the Italian Communist Party (ICP) and trade unions distanced themselves from these events, provoking sharp criticism from radical members of Quaderni Rossi. For Tronti and his allies, the party and union stance was unacceptable, which only strengthened their anti-union sentiments and radicalized their critical attitude toward existing forms of labor organization [Tronti, 2016].

In response, the Quaderni Rossi group issued a call for the creation of new workers' organizations at all FIAT enterprises capable of resisting exploitation. This initiative met with extremely negative reactions from the Federation of Metalworkers (FIOM), including figures who had previously sympathized with operaism. For Panzieri, this was a heavy blow, whereas for Tronti and his supporters it only confirmed the need for more decisive and autonomous political action independent of traditional leftist structures [Tronti, 2016].

Ideological differences also played a significant role. Panzieri, as noted by Guidali, accused Tronti of dogmatic interpretation of Marx, especially regarding the "final" stage of capitalist development, which Tronti directly linked to revolution [Guidali, 2021]. Panzieri, maintaining ties with traditional labor organizations, believed such an approach ignored the complexities of real class struggle and the necessity of dialogue with existing structures. He saw this as an oversimplification that failed to consider nuances of capitalist development and reform potential.

Tronti, by contrast, argued that political discourse is... a common class standpoint [Tronti, 2016]. For him, this meant the necessity of a "new Marxist practice" that does not merely vulgarize theoretical formulas but "translates them into real situations." He and his group around Classe Operaia sought direct intervention in the labor movement, seeing it as a homogeneous force at the international level whose insubordination is growing everywhere [Guidali, 2021].

Classe Operaia, whose first issue appeared in January 1964, was the result of this "bold new path" chosen by Tronti and his comrades such as Alberto Asor Rosa, Romano Alquati, and Antonio Negri [Guidali, 2021]. The new publication, subtitled "Political Monthly of Fighting Workers," openly declared its intention not just to analyze but actively participate in organizing worker protest, rejecting detached analysis. This marked a clear departure from the more academic and analytical approach that initially prevailed in Quaderni Rossi under Panzieri's leadership.

The break between Panzieri and Tronti essentially reflected fundamental differences in understanding the role of intellectuals and their relationship to the labor movement. Panzieri, though critical of traditional organizations, still sought dialogue and reform, whereas Tronti and his group saw the need for a complete break and the creation of new, autonomous forms of organization. This was not merely a tactical disagreement but a profound divergence in strategic vision for the future of the labor movement and its relations with capital.

While Quaderni Rossi under Panzieri continued publishing until 1966, Classe Operaia became the flagship of the "second operaism," focusing on theoretical development of problems related to the divergence between workers' aspirations and existing structures [Tronti, 2016]. Tronti, as Bologna notes, laid the "foundations" of operaism by reinterpreting Marx's second volume of Capital and introducing elements of great originality, including the very concept of class composition [Bologna, 2003]. This concept was an attempt to put Tronti's ideas about the factory and society into practice, distinguishing his approach from more traditional Marxism.

Ultimately, the split led to the formation of two distinct currents within operaism: one more theoretical and analytical, associated with Panzieri and Quaderni Rossi, and the other more politically oriented and interventionist, represented by Tronti and Classe Operaia. This division not only reflected internal contradictions within the movement but also prepared the ground for operaism's further development, which would continue seeking answers to how workers can organize and struggle under constantly changing capitalism.

Criticism and Limitations

Despite its innovative character and significant influence, operaism, especially in its early Italian form, did not escape criticism and had certain limitations that affected its theoretical conclusions and political practice. One key limitation was an excessive focus on the factory as the sole or main arena of class struggle, leading to underestimation of other forms of exploitation and resistance. Although Tronti developed the concept of the "social factory," expanding analysis beyond the production shop floor [Palazzo, 2014], early operaism remained predominantly "factory-centric." This meant that struggles occurring outside factory walls—such as in reproduction, households, or the informal sector—often remained peripheral to analysis. Had this issue been addressed from the outset, operaism might have more quickly integrated movements such as feminism, which, for example, through Mariarosa Dalla Costa, later proposed the concept of "wages for housework," broadening the understanding of labor and exploitation [Bracke, 2013].

Another significant limitation lay in the methodology of "worker inquiry" (inchiesta operaia), despite its revolutionary nature. Although intended to bridge the gap between intellectuals and workers, in practice it often faced problems of representation and interpretation. Intellectuals, even striving for "co-research" (conricerca), still brought their theoretical frameworks and political biases into the analysis process. This could lead to workers' voices being interpreted through the lens of existing concepts rather than received in their pure form. For example, Steve Wright, analyzing Alquati's contribution, notes that "worker inquiry" was an attempt to understand the "new" workforce, but questions remained about how free this understanding was from the researchers' own theoretical assumptions [Bologna, 2003].

Conclusions drawn from such studies could be distorted without constant reflection on the researcher's role and influence on the object of study.

Finally, the split between Panzieri and Tronti, which led to the formation of Classe Operaia, revealed a fundamental tension between theoretical analysis and immediate political action. Tronti's approach, oriented toward immediate intervention and "attack on the capitalist system," while more dynamic, could lead to oversimplification of complex social processes and underestimation of the need for prolonged theoretical work [Guidali, 2021]. While Panzieri insisted that political intervention should be an experiment causing induced consequences provided we can control them [Guidali, 2021], Tronti's approach sometimes seemed more prone to the risk of uncontrolled outcomes. This difference in approaches to the theory-practice relationship left open the question of how to achieve a balance between deep understanding of social reality and effective political mobilization without sacrificing either aspect.

Conclusions

• Operaism emerged as a critical response to the inability of traditional leftist movements and trade unions in Italy to adequately respond to new forms of capitalist exploitation and worker resistance.
• Mario Panzieri, founder of Quaderni Rossi, laid the theoretical foundations of operaism, emphasizing "worker inquiry" (inchiesta operaia) as a method for understanding workers' real conditions and struggles.
• Mario Tronti made a "Copernican revolution" in Marxism, asserting that it is the struggle of the working class that drives capital's development, not vice versa.
• The concepts of "refusal of work" and "social factory," developed by Tronti, expanded the understanding of class struggle beyond the production shop floor to include all spheres of social life.
• The split between Panzieri and Tronti reflected fundamental disagreements about the role of intellectuals and the nature of political intervention: from an analytical approach to direct activism.
• Quaderni Rossi became a key platform for forming a unique theoretical and political landscape of operaism, rethinking the role of the working class as an active subject of historical process.
• How can the operaism idea of "working-class autonomy" be realized in the context of globalized and deindustrialized capitalism, where traditional forms of factory labor give way to new forms of exploitation?