Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

so whats all this fuss about the precariat?

I don't know about 'very wealthy' but I know plenty of people who've done reasonably well out of grafting on their own account, rather than working for the man.

For your contractors have contemporaries, with similar education and skills, working in similar industries, but in more secure, traditional employment. Doubtless dreaming of giving up work, too, with much the same probability :( They also probably work harder than they used to, don't drive BMWs or have huge houses, don't get to Goa, but comparatively... well if the freelances aren't earning more, and with more control, then they're struggling (or they're all young enough to still be dreaming).
 
Top Dog said:
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?

aye, strings & bows & all that. One of the full time organisers (who's leaving) wanted to get a team behind her before she left. Word got round, through mutual friends, she was looking for politically committed hands-on people, & some of us were invited to an informal gathering at her house. It was very informal (although felt slightly contrived) getting to know other organisers, trainee organisers, & other interested people. We'd be full time fully paid organisers for the t & g.

We left with the invitiation to go out with some organisers one night (trying to recruit the tube cleaners at the minute) to get used to the role, find out what exactly the jobs entails, our responsibilites & expectations etc. She was trying to get across the concept of bringing an "activist mentality" into organising (& recruiting) those who work in fragmented, fractured employment as a way of getting them a) to engage with the unions & b) organise themselves collectively.

The idea sounds fine in principle & i think it was deliberately pitched that way to appeal to us, although how much influence the union will have over our activities was neatly avoided.

I imagine you know our northern correspondence getting involved with the polish workers up there?
 
some observations on positives of 'flexibility' and escaping work

sovietpop said:
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.
Apologies before i begin as im going to go a little abstract on y'all for a minute...

the thing we're really talking about here is the capacity for small groups of proletarians to find the means to subtract themselves from producing value... there are several things about this:

1) self evidently we cannot abolish work until we've abolished capitalism - so in a sense there always exists in these tendencies the danger that they are simply peripheral to capital and accomodated within capital... we know well the problems of marginalisation, ghettoisation, recuperation of struggles & social experiments, etc. etc. However;

2) if we agree that revolution is not encapsulated in an event but is a process (we are not leninists) then it is clear that redefining and reconstructing social relations - communist social relations - is central to this process. Marxists and Anarchists have to some degree absented themselves from addressing this question: how do we at once transform our social relationships whilst simultaneously waiting for the 'masses' to rise up (where we bide our time by issuing agit-prop as our form of activity) For it is the case that without a significant section of working class won over to the idea of a better life, the danger is that it we amount to no more than that in point 1 above. But this is only a partial truth. Its a circular problem... and this roadblock creates inertia on creative thinking for those interested in such things

3) the strategy of the refusal (of work) in the 70s was an attempt to break this circularity. As has been mentioned already this strategy grew in use across italy and elsewhere and reflected the desire to break away from the post war consensus, to be free from work, to live rather than to exist, to get their jam today and fuck waiting for tomorrow. Some will describe such strategies as elevating vanguardist notions of struggle > priveleging certain workers with revolutionary potential because of the work they do, rather than the working class as a whole.

4) the lessons from this strategy (and more to the point this movement) leave us with with an understanding of the dangers of what happens when it gets detached from its base (when autonomia was no longer a part of the class, but separated from it) Whether it started with vanguardism is a moot point, but there can be little argument that thats where it ended up by the end of the 70s...

5) But for me what is clear is that the escape from work must once again form part of any strategy aimed at escaping capitalism. It would seem inevitable that this stuff will begin in small groups and among individuals - people like us, minorities. What we need to keep in constant check is that we are not marginalising ourselves, that we are a 'big voice' in the community and we keep things open and fluid. So initiatives like social centres, physical spaces that offer support and solidarity, places where people can meet and arrange their lives without exchange are all positive moves. We cannot invent class war where there is none but we can try to reconstruct how are lives are organised in the here and now with such means and be a public space already established if, and when, ever larger numbers of people find such places useful in themselves or as beacons by which we advance our interests, personal or collective.

6) What this is basically saying is that those who will critique others looking for ways to escape from work often leap to rather crass generalisations ("its activist-y", "its hippy", its not authentically "working class" "its vanguardist" and so on). In doing so they would appear to be dazzled by the form and so they miss the content of these desires... which for me is the part that is most useful, the only important part really
 
montevideo said:
The idea sounds fine in principle & i think it was deliberately pitched that way to appeal to us, although how much influence the union will have over our activities was neatly avoided.
montevideo said:
We'd be full time fully paid organisers for the t & g.
Think you've answered your own question there


Notwithstanding the lessons of what happens to previous militants on 'working from within'...

Greenpeace and WDM lead the NGO's that would recuperate the idea of direct action in its campaigns and media work. Cant you see that this is exaclty what the T&G would have you do?
 
Top Dog said:
Think you've answered your own question there


Notwithstanding the lessons of what happens to previous militants on 'working from within'...

Greenpeace and WDM lead the NGO's that would recuperate the idea of direct action in its campaigns and media work. Cant you see that this is exaclty what the T&G would have you do?

it's a job. I am very skeptical about their sincerity but getting paid to encourage workers to go on strike can't be all that bad. How far i go with it depends to how much i can useful ly use the position. No illusions though.
 
montevideo said:
aye, strings & bows & all that. One of the full time organisers (who's leaving) wanted to get a team behind her before she left. Word got round, through mutual friends, she was looking for politically committed hands-on people, & some of us were invited to an informal gathering at her house. It was very informal (although felt slightly contrived) getting to know other organisers, trainee organisers, & other interested people. We'd be full time fully paid organisers for the t & g.

We left with the invitiation to go out with some organisers one night (trying to recruit the tube cleaners at the minute) to get used to the role, find out what exactly the jobs entails, our responsibilites & expectations etc. She was trying to get across the concept of bringing an "activist mentality" into organising (& recruiting) those who work in fragmented, fractured employment as a way of getting them a) to engage with the unions & b) organise themselves collectively.

The idea sounds fine in principle & i think it was deliberately pitched that way to appeal to us, although how much influence the union will have over our activities was neatly avoided.

I imagine you know our northern correspondence getting involved with the polish workers up there?


Sweet baby jesus! Let me get this right , you are now a union organiser in the T&G!!! Not elected , not accountable to the membership but appointed by the trade union machinery to boost its ratings in a membership war . Well, I''ll go to Shields.
 
Chuck Wilson said:
Sweet baby jesus! Let me get this right , you are now a union organiser in the T&G!!! Not elected , not accountable to the membership but appointed by the trade union machinery to boost its ratings in a membership war . Well, I''ll go to Shields.

yep. Got any advice, you seem to have gone through a lot of unions yourself?

Ps no not a organiser yet (if i ever get that far)
 
montevideo said:
yep. Got any advice, you seem to have gone through a lot of unions yourself?

Ps no not a organiser yet (if i ever get that far)

i've got loads of advice mate jeezus fucking christ!

don't do it! unless you're only doing it for the money in which case fine - there are much worse ways to make a living,good luck to you...

i really can't see the t&G helping the furtherance of working class self organisation, self defence, and militancy - the best you will be able to do is sign up members of a very vulnerable section of the workforce to some basic union protections (which imo is a good thing) i really don't see how that fits into your ideas as i understood them though...
 
montevideo said:
yep. Got any advice, you seem to have gone through a lot of unions yourself?

Ps no not a organiser yet (if i ever get that far)

Monty, work is work as far as I am concerned but I get the feeling that what attracted yiu to this was more than just work. All that stuff about them wanting a more activist style seems to have entrapped you. I don't think you are going to be able to treat this just as a job and with no connection to your politics. One or the other is going to change.
How does this all square with all the stuff you have trotted out on here.
 
Is there a word to express the opposite of precarity?


This article claims that General Motors "has more than 400,000 North American retirees, and $1,500 of the showroom sticker price of each of its vehicles goes towards meeting that financial burden." They are cutting 30,000 jobs in an attempt to compete with Toyota, who have only 1000 US pensioners 'to look after'.

Is it any wonder that capital seeks a casual workforce, if this is the logic of <opposite of precarity> working practices?
 
newbie said:
Is there a word to express the opposite of precarity?


This article claims that General Motors "has more than 400,000 North American retirees, and $1,500 of the showroom sticker price of each of its vehicles goes towards meeting that financial burden." They are cutting 30,000 jobs in an attempt to compete with Toyota, who have only 1000 US pensioners 'to look after'.

Is it any wonder that capital seeks a casual workforce, if this is the logic of <opposite of precarity> working practices?


It's the unravelling of 'business unionism' and the 'Keynesian consensus' on which it was predicated.

Of course there is still a debate to be had to find out if even a majority of workers in the developed countries actually benefitted from this - somebody made the point that some kind of 'precarity' has always existed, its merely its degree that has changed - over time, and by sector of the workforce. Would need some real research to establish the exact truth of this.


gra
 
Truth is a bit different in hindsight than at the time. I suspect that contemporary analysis would always show a substantial portion of the workforce in such a precarious position that no-one could suggest that workers were truly secure. Capitalism depends on a pool of unemployed and a fear for the future amongst the employed.

Hindsight is different, if only because a lot of evidence is lost or forgotten.

Having said that there was a postwar job-for-life generation, now drawing final salary based occupational pensions, for most of whom precarity was a bit distant. That they had to go through world war to get from 30s destitution to that level of security is not worth emulating, IMO.

Their legacy leads to a $1500 per car price loading for a current generation being threatened with everything from environmental collapse to wholesale job transfer to China. ie, that model wasn't sustainable.
 
just so happens i'm reading harry braverman's 'labour & monopoly capital' (published in 1974) which is utterly prescient in its outlook & would have the negriphobes running shitless in their desire to retain a fragment of awareness.

Sometimes i wonder just who we are talking to about what...
 
montevideo said:
just so happens i'm reading harry braverman's 'labour & monopoly capital' (published in 1974) which is utterly prescient in its outlook & would have the negriphobes running shitless in their desire to retain a fragment of awareness.

Sometimes i wonder just who we are talking to about what...


Uh? do you not mean negriphiles? I've followed Negri's evolution from a thinker within a mass movement - a movement that developed its own terms like 'mass worker' which he added real meaning to - to an academic whose categories are now so bland and so amorphous as to be devoid any real life and possibly - meaning.

Braverman, despite the obigatory reference to his MR colleagues Baran and Sweezy, remains solidly rooted in a material reality. It is a real pleasure to go back to his work, despite his Trot leanings.

Labour and Monopoly Capital was required reading for many in Autonomia after it was published - 1974 I think. Not sure about the 'prescience' you refer to - care to elaborate?

Gra
 
davgraham said:
Uh? do you not mean negriphiles? I've followed Negri's evolution from a thinker within a mass movement - a movement that developed its own terms like 'mass worker' which he added real meaning to - to an academic whose categories are now so bland and so amorphous as to be devoid any real life and possibly - meaning.

Braverman, despite the obigatory reference to his MR colleagues Baran and Sweezy, remains solidly rooted in a material reality. It is a real pleasure to go back to his work, despite his Trot leanings.

Labour and Monopoly Capital was required reading for many in Autonomia after it was published - 1974 I think. Not sure about the 'prescience' you refer to - care to elaborate?

Gra

as braverman says in his book he was attempting to document the 'transformation of work in the modern era'. Two significant chapters under the heading of 'the growing working class occupations' - clerical workers & service occupations (retail trade), gives a indication that these types of employment would have a significance in the labour market in years to come (as you say labour & monopoly capital was published in 1974 when manufacturing was king & heavy industry still hadn't lost its influence & impact on workplace struggles).

I think braverman 'empirical' assessment compliments negri's more theorectical flights of fancy. Which is why i think those terrified of negri's current turn would be unhappy with what braverman had to say way back in 74.
 
montevideo said:
as braverman says in his book he was attempting to document the 'transformation of work in the modern era'. Two significant chapters under the heading of 'the growing working class occupations' - clerical workers & service occupations (retail trade), gives a indication that these types of employment would have a significance in the labour market in years to come (as you say labour & monopoly capital was published in 1974 when manufacturing was king & heavy industry still hadn't lost its influence & impact on workplace struggles).

I think braverman 'empirical' assessment compliments negri's more theorectical flights of fancy. Which is why i think those terrified of negri's current turn would be unhappy with what braverman had to say way back in 74.
i dont see how you make the leap from the one to the other... unless your argument is that braverman identified the multitude as a category while the 'social' worker was still the currency of the day? is that what you're saying?
 
Top Dog said:
i dont see how you make the leap from the one to the other... unless your argument is that braverman identified the multitude as a category while the 'social' worker was still the currency of the day? is that what you're saying?

i think the complimentary aspect is braverman is wrestling with the idea that the factory worker (the traditional industrial proletariat), no longer plays the central role within the conflict of capitalism. Yes, to him the working class exists (as a class), but it is in the process of transformation - clerical labour (as he calls it) is largely the product of monopoly capitalism. So braverman identifies clerical labour (or immaterial labour in the negrian sense) & service industries as a 'new' form of capitalist relations, that will become dominant given 'the completion by capital of the conquest of goods-producing activities'.

I think the key word is compliments rather than concrete or direct comparisons.
 
nothing to add other than Negri's theory of the multitude and his fascination with immaterial (which is impossible) labour says much much more about his own past of fetishing the factory worker than it does about present day social relations.
 
montevideo said:
i think the complimentary aspect is braverman is wrestling with the idea that the factory worker (the traditional industrial proletariat), no longer plays the central role within the conflict of capitalism.
People were saying that long before 1974, Bookchin for a start.

So braverman identifies clerical labour (or immaterial labour in the negrian sense) & service industries as a 'new' form of capitalist relations,
What's new about clerical labour in 1974? It'd been going on for long time up to then.
 
catch said:
People were saying that long before 1974, Bookchin for a start.


What's new about clerical labour in 1974? It'd been going on for long time up to then.

oh shut the fuck up about the senile ole cunt! ;)
 
montevideo said:
i think the complimentary aspect is braverman is wrestling with the idea that the factory worker (the traditional industrial proletariat), no longer plays the central role within the conflict of capitalism.
catch said:
People were saying that long before 1974
Quite. In fact isnt that what Negri et al had been formulating in their conception of the end of the mass worker and the arrival of the socialised worker prior to 1974?

And as for clerical labour... thats not an interchangeable term for immaterial labour... it is still entirely possible to be producing value as a clerical worker for a start
 
sorry but Negri doesn't hold that the immaterial doesn't produce value so i fail to see your point.

Infact the one good thing i take from Negri is that he decentres value production away from individual occupations/points in production into a generalised social factory.
 
Back
Top Bottom