so whats all this fuss about the precariat?

From my original post:

Top Dog said:

And what is it we are fighting for?
Again, another thorny issue… As subjects whose lives are increasingly impinged on by preacarity, where there is no such thing as clocking in and out of work, what is it we want? Who is the ‘we’? Are we fighting for more work or less work? Is the fight about making ‘demands’ on a decaying social democracy for the re-establishment of workers’ ‘rights’ or fighting to abolish work and create new realities, new social relationships?

And following that, does the erosion of social democracy create new possibilities further down the line or should we be fighting to reinvent social democracy for a modern world a return of those safeguards and certainties?

Click to expand...

So with the above in mind, what do people make of the sentiments and possibilities expressed in this statement apparently being circulated around the tuc? Where does the 'radical' critique engage with this debate?

Top Dog said:

From my original post:
So with the above in mind, what do people make of the sentiments and possibilities expressed in this statement apparently being circulated around the tuc? Where does the 'radical' critique engage with this debate?

Click to expand...

actually, me & others have been a part of this new grouping direction. The t & G have put a lot on money, with the backing of the tuc, into recruiting people from an activist background to engage with 'precarious' workers. Given that union membership is hemorrhaging in traditonal industries it seems a positive tactical shift on their part. Other than that i'd say it still all about figures & signed up members & despite the rhetoric there remains a defined hierarchy that you will always be subordinated to.

montevideo said:

actually, me & others have been a part of this new grouping direction. The t & G have put a lot on money, with the backing of the tuc, into recruiting people from an activist background to engage with 'precarious' workers. Given that union membership is hemorrhaging in traditonal industries it seems a positive tactical shift on their part. Other than that i'd say it still all about figures & signed up members & despite the rhetoric there remains a defined hierarchy that you will always be subordinated to.

Click to expand...

i was aware of the T&G initiative. I wasnt aware you were involved in it... so when you say you have been part of this new direction, in what ways? What work have you been doing? what was the brief? what 'others' were involved (i know one or two)? how were you 'recruited'? did they apporoach you or you them?

Probably quite relevant to this thread but a little to your west are two articles we published in RBR on the changing nature of work under capitalism. They just went online yesterday and are

Work in the 21st century
A number of issues are being discussed in this article. Firstly has the workplace changed fundamentally such that people increasingly are in temporary work rather than permanent work? Secondly is the division between work time and non-work time dissolving, are we spending more of our lives 'in work'? Thirdly are the non-work aspects of life becoming increasingly insecure?
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1828

and

Chainworkers and Brainworkers in Ireland
Chainworkers means the 'workers in malls, shopping centres, hypermarkets, and in the myriad of jobs of logistics and selling in the metropolis'. Brainworkers means the knowledge workers, the programmers, the creatives and the freelancers. How do these categories pan out in the Irish labour market?
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1827

That's a great article and very thought provoking, but nowhere does it mention those who cannot work, the sick, disabled, etc, in the uk that is many millions..


yeah, i know its an article about workers, but......

er, sorry it does, duh....

The elevation of the mass worker, full-time and male, came hand in hand with the marginalising of the experiences of the woman worker, the part-time worker, the woman working in the home, the unemployed, etc.

Click to expand...

Wow a really useful thread, congratulations to all for keeping it on track. There’s some interesting articles at Mute magazine’s issue on precariousness: http://www.metamute.com/look/section.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue=29&NrSection=10
One of them talks about the very concept of precariousness as teetering and I think it’s when concepts are in this open and unsettled state that they are most useful. Sooner or latter of course all concepts become wooden and dead but it’s in our interests to keep this one open for as long as possible.

The point isn’t whether it’s an accurate sociological analysis or if the concept is well known and therefore useful as a propaganda tool but whether it help us see things differently, draw links between different struggles and help us develop new ways of doing things.

One way precarity does this more effectively than say casualisation is that precarity helps us see the links between increased insecurity in our working lives and the increased insecurity of our “political rights”.

People might well except that rights have to be temporarily suspended during wartime. Well now we have the “war on terror” which has no possible end and so you have a permanent state of exception.

Just look at how much harder it is for illegal migrants to be politically active with the need to avoid situations where they could be arrested. To a much lesser extent that’s the threat that hangs over everyone. Suspension of our right to enter countries happens often before summit protests. Or look at the bail conditions issued after Gleneagles, which amounted to banning people from the country.

I think that’s some of the thinking behind the demands for rights coming out of some of the European precarity activists. Insecurity was a deliberate tactic adopted by capital to make people less likely to struggle. How do we increase the space people have to set their own agenda and struggle for their own interests? And how do we do all that without letting that space form into limits on people’s demands. That is without letting it form into a new social democracy.

response to the WSM article

This is a good article (as i agree with most of the general observations ). Couple of things relating to it however:

Red & Black Revolution said:

One approach to the issue of organising is to try and identify which category of worker will fill the shoes left vacant by the demise of the mass worker. Some focus on the two sectors that have been the fastest growing in Europe, the expansion of those working in the knowledge economy and the rise of the service sector. The difficulty is that, firstly these are sectors that have very different experiences of work, expectations, problems and needs. Beyond the fact that both are paid labourers, it is hard to see what is gained by trying to establish a one-size-fits all strategy that can be applied to both of these groups (or should that read, one size fits nobody)

Click to expand...

Precisely. This is one of the points I make further up the thread. But it would be good to discuss some of these differences (or in fact any similarites) in much more detail... it is clear that research, inquiry etc. is an important an element to this.

Red & Black Revolution said:

This may seem like a trivial point, but we do need to be aware that there is a political legacy that seeks to identify the 'leading sector' of the working class, a legacy which runs counter to the anarchist ideal of a revolution in which power is exercised and held by all in society. The elevation of the mass worker, full-time and male, came hand in hand with the marginalising of the experiences of the woman worker, the part-time worker, the woman working in the home, the unemployed, etc.

Click to expand...

Im assuming, (because the article alludes to this in several places) that you’re referring to the workerist/autonomist legacy? If so I don’t think the above adequately reflects the breadth of the movement and certainly doesn’t acknowledge the work done on exactly those issues by militants such as Federici, Dalla Costa or Fortunati.

Red & Black Revolution said:

Finally, and possibly the factor which has presented the most difficult to us, and has coloured much of what I am going to say below, is that for almost twenty years the major trade unions have participated in social partnership(7). This has resulted, for the most part, in stagnant, conservative unions, who have been incapable of capitalising on our economic growth and have atrophied at the shop-floor or grassroots level

Click to expand...

Which returns us to the nub of one of my earlier questions… if we are in agreement on the general tendency of trade unionism to: mediate workers struggles with capital, that is, to dissuade from self activity and instead towards representation, alienation… should we be fighting to rebuild and reinvent social democracy anew?

I’m approaching this with a genuinely open mind as it is clear that there are many elements in the profound defeat of the old working class and the reorganisiation of the economy > to the service sector, that suggest a renaissance of syndicalism in some form might once again become a viable option, in the medium term anyway. Now Im not a syndicalist, but I can recognise this as a feature that can offer seductive possibilities

Judgedread said:

The point isn’t whether it’s an accurate sociological analysis or if the concept is well known and therefore useful as a propaganda tool but whether it help us see things differently, draw links between different struggles and help us develop new ways of doing things.

Click to expand...

Judgedread said:

I think that’s some of the thinking behind the demands for rights coming out of some of the European precarity activists. Insecurity was a deliberate tactic adopted by capital to make people less likely to struggle. How do we increase the space people have to set their own agenda and struggle for their own interests? And how do we do all that without letting that space form into limits on people’s demands. That is without letting it form into a new social democracy.

Click to expand...

i think this is a really important point and one of the 'hinges' on the debate. Welcome to the boards Judgedread!

montevideo said:

actually, me & others have been a part of this new grouping direction. The t & G have put a lot on money, with the backing of the tuc, into recruiting people from an activist background to engage with 'precarious' workers. Given that union membership is hemorrhaging in traditonal industries it seems a positive tactical shift on their part. Other than that i'd say it still all about figures & signed up members & despite the rhetoric there remains a defined hierarchy that you will always be subordinated to.

Click to expand...

This is a joke yes?

Top Dog said:

Im assuming, (because the article alludes to this in several places) that you’re referring to the workerist/autonomist legacy? If so I don’t think the above adequately reflects the breadth of the movement and certainly doesn’t acknowledge the work done on exactly those issues by woman such as Federici, Dalla Costa or Fortunati.

Click to expand...

True enough, I agree with you. I actually haven't read much of their work - any idea where I should start?

Which returns us to the nub of one of my earlier questions… if we are in agreement on the general tendency of trade unionism to: mediate workers struggles with capital, that is, to dissuade from self activity and instead towards representation, alienation… should we be fighting to rebuild and reinvent social democracy anew?

I’m approaching this with a genuinely open mind as it is clear that there are many elements in the profound defeat of the old working class and the reorganisiation of the economy > to the service sector, that suggest a renaissance of syndicalism in some form might once again become a viable form, in the medium term anyway. Now Im not a syndicalist, but I can recognise that is a feature that can offer seductive possibilities

Click to expand...

You and I are singing from the same hymn sheet i think. Unions aren't static to my mind, their political approach at any time varies depending on who wins and who looses the battles within them. Sometimes you can push unions in directions you'd like them to go, sometimes you can't. They aren't revolutionary organisations - true enough, but that doesn't mean they can't be very useful organisations.
For me its not really about trying to re-build social democracy, but trying to win some victories, 'cos without a couple of victories under our belt, we ain't got nuttin.

sovietpop said:

True enough, I agree with you. I actually haven't read much of their work - any idea where I should start?

Click to expand...

its come up the odd time on here, but Dalla Costa's The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community i think is a very good intro (and iirc i think Butchers was scanning this some time back).

You could also have a look for Fortunati's Arcane of Reproduction. Havent read it yet, and much more recent is Federici's Caliban and the Witch is supposed to be very good.

(I have it scanned, it's in doc for anyone who wants it - it was supposed to go on the class against class site, but for various reasons hasn't - give me a minute to get the link)

Yep, Caliban and the Witch is a great book.

Right click and save here (Doc link warning, it's fine though):

http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/Subversion_of_Community_complete1.rtf

Top Dog said:

But it would be good to discuss some of these differences (or in fact any similarites) in much more detail... it is clear that research, inquiry etc. is an important an element to this.

Click to expand...

Judgedread said "Insecurity was a deliberate tactic adopted by capital to make people less likely to struggle." That's true for the service workers: but the knowledge workers have been demanding flexibility because in fast moving industries the freelances make the most money.

This has been a very good thread, and I hope it doesn't get derailed, but for me it's been missing the recognition that increasing numbers of people expect to be able to run their lives on their own terms, with potential for success or for failure.

Whilst being, in some ways, victims of malign forces well beyond control many people actively seek the rewards of meritocratic individualism. Juggling money/time work/life, and marching to the beat of your own drum are attractive life choices, but only for those who want them (in much the same way as a job for life is attractive, but only for those it wouldn't send completely spare). Part of the impulse that been driving this trend towards casualisation has come from the bottom up, as people have demanded control over their own lives.


Both these experiences are important: those who are purely victims of insecurity and those seeking the rewards of flexibility, they're two sides of the coin.

butchersapron said:

(I have it scanned, it's in doc for anyone who wants it - it was supposed to go on the class against class site, but for various reasons hasn't - give me a minute to get the link)

Yep, Caliban and the Witch is a great book.

Right click and save here (Doc link warning, it's fine though):

http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/Subversion_of_Community_complete1.rtf

Click to expand...

now here for rtf hatas

http://libcom.org/library/power-women-subversion-community-della-costa-selma-james

Cheers catch. (I'd still like to know if that post by Monte was a pisstake or not as well).

butchersapron said:

Right click and save here (Doc link warning, it's fine though):
http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/Subversion_of_Community_complete1.rtf

Click to expand...

What a service! Thank you very much.
One of my comrades is reading Caliban at the moment, I'm next on the list to get it. But it does sound like a very arkane topic - but she's enjoying it.

"Insecurity was a deliberate tactic adopted by capital to make people less likely to struggle."

Click to expand...

Capital isn't a person, nor is it a group of people, and it therefore can't do things deliberately. And newbie points out that the move towards flexibility is a result of class antagonism from both directions.

Both these experiences are important: those who are purely victims of insecurity and those seeking the rewards of flexibility, they're two sides of the coin.[/QUOTE]

Yeh spot on newbie, although a lot of people probably fall into both categories. After all, the struggles of the sixties and seventies in the west were all about going beyond the job for life, welfare settlement of the post-war period. People wanted more flexible lives and didn't want work as a life sentence. Perhaps part of the reason people were able to push struggles in that direction was the relative security of the time. The expansion of higher education meant lots of students with time on their hands and getting sacked from a job isn't such a big deal if there's another to walk into. Then again you can also see anarcho-punk of the early eighties as a tactic to take advantage of the expansion of unemployment to regain time and flexibility.

One of the advantages of precarity as a concept is that you don't have to look back at the welfare state with rose tinted (NHS) glasses; you can also see the potential in precarity. Hence that slogan on a banner at the ESF march in London "Against precarity, Reclaim flexibility" alright not that catchy but you get the idea.

One of the things I'm interested in is the role social centres could play as a space for things to coalesce when work places are smaller, people change jobs more often and there’s no public space anymore. The problem then becomes how do we stop social centres becoming subcultural and the like. It’s no coincidence that a lot of this precarity stuff comes from social centre experiences in Italy and Spain.

catch said:

Capital isn't a person, nor is it a group of people, and it therefore can't do things deliberately. And newbie points out that the move towards flexibility is a result of class antagonism from both directions.

Click to expand...

Of course, Catch, capital is a social relation. Although sometimes to save time people might talk of capital as one pole of that relationship. You know I occasionally slip into that myself. It would have been more accurate of me to say that the re-introduction of insecurity/precariousness was a strategy that a group of people deliberately devised and tried to create a hegemony around. (Some of those people used to meet in the Carlton club in the early seventies). They were so successful at it and neo-liberalism became such an orthodoxy that it almost appears that capital had deliberately decided on that strategy. But again you are right they were pushing against an open door because some people within some social movements had already been experimenting with more flexible lives and struggling against the bureaucratic nature of the welfare state. They were only successfull and the strategy made sense to the monetarists because of the state of class struggle at the time.

Judgedread said:

Of course, Catch, capital is a social relation. Although sometimes to save time people might talk of capital as one pole of that relationship. You know I occasionally slip into that myself.

Click to expand...

Me too, but I thought it worth picking up on.

Judgedread said:

After all, the struggles of the sixties and seventies in the west were all about going beyond the job for life, welfare settlement of the post-war period. People wanted more flexible lives and didn't want work as a life sentence.

Click to expand...

Yes. The very act of creating cradle to grave collective provision gave rise to wave after wave of young people determined to demand their individuality.

Now that choice and self-determination are almost taken for granted it's becoming apparent that flexible individualism works well for the successful young, dynamic and well-educated. It can work for other groups, of course, but that's who predominantly benefit, partially because that's who has the skills most in demand and partially because those are the people who can self-exploit most easily. A freelance lifestyle, however precarious, can lead to plucking the fruits of this society.

This means that painting precarity in a purely negative light will never chime properly with popular perception, because we can all look around us and see how beneficial it can be.

However as age, family commitments, or waning success (always someone younger and hungrier snapping at the heels) begin to bite the drawbacks of a precarious lifestyle look far less positive. Living by the sword can also mean early burnout with precious little team player, corporate prospects (to mix metaphors without mercy). Name your own price freelancing is a bit different from make ends meet, minimum wage casual work.

The persuasions which tempt the young and fleet of foot towards being freelance and away from PAYE security are far less positive for lowskilled workers or those who are older or with language, family commitment or other inhibitors.

So it's easy to view precarity, in opposition to job-for-life security, as a negative experience: over the course of a lifetime only a very few will have an entirely positive outcome from freelancing.. The trouble is, as they look around, most people won't believe you, because graphic designers and computer contractors are much, much more visible than those washing up or temping as security guards, or the ex-freelances sheltering in a call centre while they try to wheedle their way into a decent, secure, team player job..

newbie said:

A freelance lifestyle, however precarious, can lead to plucking the fruits of this society.

This means that painting precarity in a purely negative light will never chime properly with popular perception, because we can all look around us and see how beneficial it can be.

[...]

The persuasions which tempt the young and fleet of foot towards being freelance and away from PAYE security are far less positive for lowskilled workers or those who are older or with language, family commitment or other inhibitors.

So it's easy to view precarity, in opposition to job-for-life security, as a negative experience: over the course of a lifetime only a very few will have an entirely positive outcome from freelancing.. The trouble is, as they look around, most people won't believe you, because graphic designers and computer contractors are much, much more visible than those washing up or temping as security guards, or the ex-freelances sheltering in a call centre while they try to wheedle their way into a decent, secure, team player job..

Click to expand...

some interesting points newbie.

However id be cautious of drawing too optimistic a picture of the + long term possibilities (say of freelancing) as new sectors of the economy (the creative industries) are not so new anymore and are increasingly saturated. Reduction of core costs (wage bill, contractors fees) employers will argue is the only viable means to keep their businesses solvent... And these days everyone's a web designer, solutions are increasingly software focused (deskilling the techies the aim), the sector has been laying people off, the advertising market has been on its uppers for a long while now and all this in a time of supposed growth and consumer spending... In short these industries will see/are seeing wages pushed down and job / long term security is i think becoming more of an issue.

<puts crystal ball back in drawer>

I agree entirely that that's the projected reality, but the perception of freelance/contractor flexibility bringing rewards will take a long time to dispel.

In any industry where a flexible workforce gains an upper hand, or even a particularly strong one, capital will fight to reassert itself- just look at computer contractors during the Y2K bug frenzy which was followed almost immediately by the near collapse of the sector through IR35 and outsourcing to India etc.

The difficulties and illusions that surround precarious working practices apply almost as much to those taking immediate rewards as to those who are more obviously victims. But concentrating only on the latter, as much of this thread has, creates theory which ignores both the demand for and the benefits of flexible lifestyles. That's at odds with observation: personally I expect theory to describe reality without ignoring inconveniences which don't fit.

newbie said:

But concentrating only on the latter, as much of this thread has, creates theory which ignores both the demand for and the benefits of flexible lifestyles. That's at odds with observation: personally I expect theory to describe reality without ignoring inconveniences which don't fit.

Click to expand...

well i didnt outline the condition in terms of 'victimhood' in the OP, in fact what interests me are the ambiguities that the situation poses within and between sectors; and to look at strategies to deal with it as part of the discussion.

So as its taken til now for someone raise the issue of precarity as a +ive("reclaim flexibility"), im just as happy to investigate this

I hope what I wrote didn't read as a dig, that wasn't intentional if it did.

Top Dog said:

So as its taken til now for someone raise the issue of precarity as a +ive("reclaim flexibility"), im just as happy to investigate this

Click to expand...

I mentioned the term "flexicurity" a page or so ago.

not positively though of course.

Top Dog said:

So as its taken til now for someone raise the issue of precarity as a +ive("reclaim flexibility"), im just as happy to investigate this

Click to expand...

yeah, I don't know quite where you end up investigating the"+"ve of flexiblity . Actually what I think you'd end up is showing that the imagined posititives were short lived and turned into a negatitive - except for the very few who become the exception that everyone aspires to be.

I did some research a couple of years ago on IT workers, during the computer boom in Ireland. And I think I unconciously decided to look at them because I reckoned that if you are going to find examples of workers using their labour market strength anywhere, you'll find it there. And I did find lots and lots of examples of employees using flexibility in their own interests and winning back their time. Actually one of the most interesting things that came up was the amount of people who had plans to escape work altogether (to make music, to write a book, to become a gardener, to do nothing).

But now looking at these same people a couple of years later? They haven't escaped work*, in fact they are working harder. They all are on pretty good incomes in Irish terms, but almost all working to pay off huge mortgages- only those in relationships with two incomes can actually afford the mortages in the first place. Perhaps some of them feel they were sold a pup, and are bitter, but there isn't a sense of very much power or control over their lives (or at least that's my impression).

So I don't know, are there any other angles I'm missing? Who is it that both desires flexiblity and benefits from it?

* in fact someone joked to me recently that every electonic dj and producer in Ireland in the 1990s now seemed to be training to be a systems administrator.

sovietpop said:

But now looking at these same people a couple of years later? They haven't escaped work*, in fact they are working harder. They all are on pretty good incomes in Irish terms, but almost all working to pay off huge mortgages- only those in relationships with two incomes can actually afford the mortages in the first place. Perhaps some of them feel they were sold a pup, and are bitter, but there isn't a sense of very much power or control over their lives (or at least that's my impression).

So I don't know, are there any other angles I'm missing? Who is it that both desires flexiblity and benefits from it?

Click to expand...

well from your own example, people who seek pretty good incomes so that they can pay off huge mortgages. Or to put it another way, those that reckon they can buy a bigger, better house if they take risks, work hard and grasp opportunities.

The alternative, which may mean working less hard and may be more secure, is a steady job. They know the job won't enable them to buy that house, drive that car and take that holiday. Add to that the understanding that no job is really secure, many involve large amounts of (unpaid?) very hard work, and rely on the promise of career advancement which may never be delivered.

So faced with the choice of rewards now or promises of milk and honey in years to come, many opt to trust their own abilities and live on their wits.

newbie said:

well from your own example, people who seek pretty good incomes so that they can pay off huge mortgages. Or to put it another way, those that reckon they can buy a bigger, better house if they take risks, work hard and grasp opportunities.

The alternative, which may mean working less hard and may be more secure, is a steady job. They know the job won't enable them to buy that house, drive that car and take that holiday. Add to that the understanding that no job is really secure, many involve large amounts of (unpaid?) very hard work, and rely on the promise of career advancement which may never be delivered.

So faced with the choice of rewards now or promises of milk and honey in years to come, many opt to trust their own abilities and live on their wits.

Click to expand...

except, except, except. The milk and honey they dreamt of was getting out of work altogether and pursuing their dreams, not getting a house, a car and a holiday. And the houses they bought aren't the big houses, but the small house in suburb they can afford ( or a big house with a one and a half hour commute) (same goes with the cars and the holidays - these people aren't the ones in BMW, jetting off to goa).

I just wonder is the idea of a positive spin on flexibity more the internalisation of a logic that suits capitalism, than something that many people actually experience in their own lives. I really don't know. That's why I was looking for other examples.


[there were two exceptions, two blokes who did become very wealthy, but strangely neither of them had the dreams of escape and being a computer programmer is/was very central to their sence of identity]