so whats all this fuss about the precariat?

[Top Dog]

No sooner do i start the thread than the new issue of my union paper arrives in my tray at work, with a 3 page 'migrant workers special' [sic]

Migrant Workers are the unseen army in today's workforce. Growing in numbers, super-exploited, victims of racism and employer abuse... but all too often invisible to the rest of the community.

The T&G has made the recruitment and organisation of these workers from all parts of the world one of its priorities...

...I bet it has. The big 3 unions are all jockeying for position in view of the super-merger in the next 12-18 months. How plausibile does a renaissance of mass industrial unionism or syndicalism sound to you folks?

 

[revol68]

Look Revol is a Troll. Why don't we ignore him? He has said on other threads that he has no interest in the anarchist movement, he shows that he has no interest in debates, he does nothing. He did his damn't best to ruin Libcom, until they changed their posting rules. Now he's spreading his bile all over Urban75. This has the potential to be an interesting discussion and he is already doing his best to derail it. I spent 10 minutes or so trying to put forward an argument to respond to someone elses query. He spends 20 seconds to swear and slander.

DON"T FEED THE TROLLS

so you took 10 minutes to make fuck all points, congratu-fucking-lations!

And i've actually posted more serious posts about the complete wank that is the precaritat before on Libcom.

And as far as I'm aware I never ruined Libcom, infact Libcom seems to have gotten better and moved on from stupid debates with primmos and other lifestylists.

and here's my post on the precariat from Libcom, it's in response to RAW.

Raw, good frames don't hide bad pictures.

Do I think that there have been substantial changes within capitalism in the last 30 years? Of course, capitalism is an ongoing dynamic relationship, it's very instability is what keeps it afloat, but do I think the term precarity as used by you and other actvists is a very poor attempt to justify substitutionism, by conveniently placing those within your millieu as the "vanguard" of the multitude, the "precariat" straddling the fences between work and play, within the fissures of the new economy, your "social spaces" become a proto commons. The WOMBLEs and other "social movements" become the new grave diggers of capital, as the Maoists proclaimed the peasants and Marcuse proclaimed students before. Revolutionary agency gets taken at face value, the proletariat gets swamped by a mulitiude of activists, causes and issues. The PGA and WSF dig up the corpse of the second international, dress it in retro social democrat chic and try to pass off their depraved necrophilia as an act of sublime beauty, as progress. In truth the PGA and WSF represent nothing but the international disporia of social democracy, huddling together, dreaming of Zion. Sure a few of the elements are a bit uppity but now is not the time for "division", we all want a better world.

But it takes only a child to point out that these activist movements represent only a minute section of humanity, that this multitude seems more and more like the invention of an Italian academic and an American literature critic. That this "precariat" seems very familiar, and so it should be because it has been stolen off the back of the chicago railway tracks, from the IWW hobos as they lay sleeping under stars, it has been harvested from Andulasian fields whilst the seasonal labourers of the CNT danced in the ruins of theologian whorehouses.

 

[cats hammers]

He did his damn't best to ruin Libcom, until they changed their posting rules.

You obviously don't remember when primmos, activists and other assorted lunatics were able to post there with impunity.

 

[revol68]

you play computer games for a living. You have your internet friends, your suicide girls, your x-box & no reason to ever leave your bedroom again. You are the poster boy for the precarious generation.

you silly fuck do you think I test computer games for a living? You do know that software is a bit wider than games?

And yes i've got internet mates but none i haven't met in real life.

I don't own an X box (castrated PC's that they are) and my suicide girls access is through my friends, and very nice it is too (in a self aware post post modern way).

Monte haven't you got racist pickets to be offering solidarity to?

 

[Top Dog]

Only wankers would to be fair. Fact is, their struggle - against a full time contract reducing their working conditions and making them less flexible - is the opposite of what most descriptions of precarity are.

And i can supply another example to supplement your point... there was a dispute of polish fruit pickers at a cambridgeshire farm in the summer. Several hundred just walked off the job and struck. Their demand? More hours! It was seasonal work and they were here to bang for a buck, save some money and fuck off to the next job or not. The piece rate was too low they felt to be worth their while (although it was the 'market rate' iyswim). Should we have supported their call for more hours? Should we have 'intervened' and suggested they transform the demand to one of upping the piece rate?

You see there are plenty of contradictory positions in relation to the debate and that, i think, is why its currently a very fertile area for research. whether "flexibility" is always a negative thing? Many say 'No', that workers can and do use it to their advantage. But again, it's about composition (when isnt it?!) the young, the single and the mobile are possibly more disposed to a positive interpretation of the situation, but other groups may only feel the insecure and negative side of it.

It's also not very applicable to highly organised groups of workers in the RMT or FBU - yes there's some flexibilisation ( being pushed through, but that's not the only thing that disputes flare up about - and there's plenty of disputes which suggests they aren't out of the picture yet.

Of course. There is no attempt to supplant a new conception of politics or redefine the notion of class struggle here. I think that is what some socialists/comms/anarchs are suspicious of... that its some denial of the essential poles of capitalist relationship > capital vs labour.

But it is about a trend and what capital is currently doing to labour... the tertiarisation of western labour (being one aspect) and about how labour then organises to respond to that. Those are the questions that im interested in exploring

And frankly, like sovietpop, i dont care what the condition is called but i cant see why that seems to always end up replacing the debate about the condition itself.

 

[JoeBlack]

You obviously don't remember when primmos, activists and other assorted lunatics were able to post there with impunity.

I think you'll find that she considers that the period when "assorted lunatics were able to post there with impunity" is only ending and that some of them now seem to be migrating here.

I know its much easier to see the lunacy in other people than in yourself but if you take a step back you'll realise that many of us consider the sort of behaviour on this thread as exactly the sort of thing a couple of 'assorted lunatics' might do.

Clowns and jugglers are embarrassing but an adult thowing repeated four year old tantrums is very much more embarrassing. That one or two of his mates think this is 'clever' just shows what a self-isolated sub culture you've constructed around yourselves.

 

[Sorry.]

what i neglected to mention in the OP is that discussion of the terminlogy has displaced any discussion of the condition itself If only it was a simple as replacing 'precarity' for 'casualisation', but the trends in late capitalism are far wider than simply the casualisation of work

Well, are you saying that the terminology is unimportant? Because there's certainly an argument to be had there.

- It might be worth unpacking why it is that you think precarity and casualisation aren't interchangeable. Do you mean that beyond the conditions of work, we have attacks on the conditions of the non-working? Where do casualisation and welfare reform overlap, is it to such an extent that we can argue that there are part of the same process?

- Process not trend. A trend suggests a preference and deliberate policy upon the part of several sections of the ruling class. I don't think this is the case, I say process because it has an economic logic, and a social inertia quite apart from ruling class agency.

- What is it? Insecurity at work, welfare reform (as cut backs, as a social control mechanism)

- What are its effects? - social dislocation and atomisation (both as claimants, job seekers, and casualised workers)

- What is to be done?...

 

[revol68]

I think you'll find that she considers that the period when "assorted lunatics were able to post there with impunity" is only ending and that some of them now seem to be migrating here.

I know its much easier to see the lunacy in other people than in yourself but if you take a step back you'll realise that many of us consider the sort of behaviour on this thread as exactly the sort of thing a couple of 'assorted lunatics' might do.

Clowns and jugglers are embarrassing but an adult thowing repeated four year old tantrums is very much more embarrassing. That one or two of his mates think this is 'clever' just shows what a self-isolated sub culture you've constructed around yourselves.

i think you'll find it's closer to a behavourial problem than a sub culture.

And sorry but some of us just like to vent our spleens on the internet, mostly cos we atleast have the wit to realise that our binary discussions have fuck all impact upon the class struggle bar allowing us to knock ideas around.

Of course you could point out that i don't give alot of ideas the time of day, and you'd be right but thats only cos they tend to be shite.

And if you think that is somewhat elitist perhaps ponder upon the fact youse are the self proclaimed leadership of ideas.

 

[montevideo]

i don't know how 'new' people want to talk about this condition. Here's an interesting article written in 1999.

All over the world the category of work that is growing most rapidly is precarious, fragile work- flexible work, including self-employment and work with short-term or no contracts.

I was a member of a German government commission on the future of work. We found that, in Germany in the seventies, only one-tenth of the population were "flexiworkers" in the broadest sense. In the eighties the proportion grew to one-quarter; in the nineties to one-third. If this dynamic continues, then in ten to 15 years' time at least half the employable population in the west will be working under fragile conditions.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4426_129/ai_54349305

For this discussion it seems the main stumbling block is those who don't even want to approach the possibility of a shift in work relations, seeing the very term 'precarity' somehow usurping marx's role in the centre of things so must deny its existence despite them being the living embodiment of it.

Again i think fighting over definitions is a red herring (as is clinging to the eccentricities of an italian theorist) but maybe these are natural birth pangs of an emerging dynamic.

 

[revol68]

i don't know how 'new' people want to talk about this condition. Here's an interesting article written in 1999.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4426_129/ai_54349305

For this discussion it seems the main stumbling block is those who don't even want to approach the possibility of a shift in work relations, seeing the very term 'precarity' somehow usurping marx's role in the centre of things so must deny its existence despite them being the living embodiment of it.

Again i think fighting over definitions is a red herring (as is clinging to the eccentricities of an italian theorist) but maybe these are natural birth pangs of an emerging dynamic.

no i think the issue is how groups like the wombles interpret the "precariat" as putting squatters and other declasse activist muppets at the centre of the proletariat, instead of substitutionist cocks.

 

[Top Dog]

Well, are you saying that the terminology is unimportant? Because there's certainly an argument to be had there.

But not at the expense of the argument itself

- It might be worth unpacking why it is that you think precarity and casualisation aren't interchangeable. Do you mean that beyond the conditions of work, we have attacks on the conditions of the non-working? Where do casualisation and welfare reform overlap, is it to such an extent that we can argue that there are part of the same process?

Well you've answered you own question. And yes id say they are part of the same process. Casualistation defines only one part of this wider relationship. You call it welfare reform i call it workfare ie. having to work for a 'dole' or be left destitute. That is an entirely different conception to the social democratic versions put out before

- Process not trend. A trend suggests a preference and deliberate policy upon the part of several sections of the ruling class. I don't think this is the case, I say process because it has an economic logic, and a social inertia quite apart from ruling class agency.

Well id agree with you here that it is indeed a process - so dont mind being pulled up on this area of terminology However, where we part company is at macro level where it seems to me you are almost suggesting that there is some kind of 'natural' inevitability to it, rather than being a result of a re-planning and restructuring of the economy as a result of the last major waves of class struggle over a generation ago...

- What is it? Insecurity at work, welfare reform (as cut backs, as a social control mechanism

- What are its effects? - social dislocation and atomisation (both as claimants, job seekers, and casualised workers)

- What is to be done?...

well that's what we're trying to address

 

[catch]

Of course. There is no attempt to supplant a new conception of politics or redefine the notion of class struggle here. I think that is what some socialists/comms/anarchs are suspicious of... that its some denial of the essential poles of capitalist relationship > capital vs labour.

Maybe not from you, but I yes I'd be one of those suspicious people.

And frankly, like sovietpop, i dont care what the condition is called but i cant see why that seems to always end up replacing the debate about the condition itself.

Because precarity is such a terrible word? Maybe we should start a new thread.

I find class composition stuff really interesting - just finished prol-position's newsletter, keep linking to Fictitious Capital and the Transition Out of Capitalism http://libcom.org/library/fictitious-capital-loren-goldner which deals with some of this sort of thing - especially the move into service industries etc. but not many people respond to it

 

[sovietpop]

You see there are plenty of contradictory positions in relation to the debate and that, i think, is why its currently a very fertile area for research. whether "flexibility" is always a negative thing? Many say 'No', that workers can and do use it to their advantage. But again, it's about composition (when isnt it?!) the young, the single and the mobile are possibly more disposed to a positive interpretation of the situation, but other groups may only feel the insecure and negative side of it.

I think you are rights, where you are in your life course is important. And another interesting non-work aspect to the issue is the issue of housing, and the "disciplining" effect of debt and morgages.

But in terms of whether flexiblity is a choice or not, it is also about relative labour market strength isn't it? Take Computer programmers here, labour market shortages, demand for their labour, so they can have both flexiblity and security. In fact in the computer industry they're more than happy to offer permanant contracts and various schemes to keep their labour force (share options etc). On the other hand, (to take another Irish example) archaelogical labourers - low skill - weak labour market, flexibility imposed upon them. (I've a friend who has just been offered two contracts; one that ends just before christmas, another that starts just after christmas i.e. his employer wants to avoid paying him over the christmas holiday).

 

[sovietpop]

Another issue that hasn't been mentioned is the increase in the numbers of women working. And this is something that (AFAIK) is genuinely new and I think its worthing thinking about what the wider implications are here for the field of struggle and areas of potentional conflict. For example in Ireland, affordable childcare is an ENORMOUS issue, and care of the elderly is going to become one in the future.

 

[catch]

Another issue that hasn't been mentioned is the increase in the numbers of women working. And this is something that (AFAIK) is genuinely new

Sorry sovietpop, but although I know what you mean in terms of women in full time work, it's also not new either.

 

[sovietpop]

ok, I dunno how many women worked during ww2, but shall we say for the sake of argument, excepting that quite short wartime period?

 

[Taxamo Welf]

i think he probably just wanted post the pics SP

 

[catch]

i think he probably just wanted post the pics SP

 

[Raw SslaC]

So whats 'new' then? Surely we are in the situation of not only flexible work (casualisation) which is at a level on a european scale never before seen, in industries that depend on new communcation technologies and jobs which depend on a variety of un-paid and effectual skills. I think that it is 'new', it may be similar judge in respective contextes of the past but it's surely the context which creates it as 'new'. We are after all arguing about 'form' here as no one disagress that the 'content' of the capital/labour relationship is still the same.

 

[sovietpop]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you staying that the nature of work is new, that is, people are doing different types of jobs, but the conditions of work, the insecurity, has always been a feature of capitalism*?



* excepting that brief post war period

 

[Rob Ray]

I don't think casualised work is at its highest ever levels, certainly when agriculture was a mainstay of many European countries the casualised seasonal workforce was vast, the same was true of the major victorian industries as a result of the massive available workforce and limited number of jobs (and lack of organised resistance). The dockers were perhaps the most famous case in point, until they rebelled.

What is perhaps notable is the reintroduction of mass casualised labour into European markets where the organised working class is now less powerful and able to defend itself, having been systematically undermined by the actions of successive governments desperate to hold on to international capital and driven by the 'success' of Thatcherite ideals/the drive against '1970s working practices'.

The word precarious is a pile of wank btw, needlessly muddies a quite simple issue when presenting it to people who know exactly what casualisation means, but no idea about Euro-jargon.

 

[Antrophe]

Interested in doing some research on this area myself, interestingly I came across an article called "The Power Of Nightmares: Phantom Job Insecurity and Demoralisation" that pretty much cuts through some of the main rationale for a discussion on precarity in the UK. Its interesting, but there are some flaws with it, its overly economistic and denies a more subjective side to work experience, such as the fact that people may very well want to cast off a job after a certain period of time. Few other things could be said about it as well but haven't the time now.

 

[gurrier]

I don't think casualised work is at its highest ever levels, certainly when agriculture was a mainstay of many European countries the casualised seasonal workforce was vast, the same was true of the major victorian industries as a result of the massive available workforce and limited number of jobs (and lack of organised resistance). The dockers were perhaps the most famous case in point, until they rebelled.

What is perhaps notable is the reintroduction of mass casualised labour into European markets where the organised working class is now less powerful and able to defend itself, having been systematically undermined by the actions of successive governments desperate to hold on to international capital and driven by the 'success' of Thatcherite ideals/the drive against '1970s working practices'.

The word precarious is a pile of wank btw, needlessly muddies a quite simple issue when presenting it to people who know exactly what casualisation means, but no idea about Euro-jargon.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think the word 'precarity' isn't purely about casualisation. As I understand it, it also applies to other "precarities" that people live under, such as the enormous number of semi-legal or illegal migrant labourers, the pressure of living under debt and so on. I also don't see the problem with 'precarious' as a word? It's a normal word in the english language and is both evocatively emotive and widely understood and captures the pressure that people often live under fairly well I think. Also, just because it's not a new phenomenon and really just a dismantling of the post-war social democracies, there's no harm in coming up with a new and evocative word for it.

From a marketing point of view, I think 'precarious' is much more powerful than the economistic 'casualisation'. On the other hand, I'm not at all sure about the using the euro-derivatives such as precarity, and 'precariousness' doesn't slip off the tongue either. But, when it comes down to it, who cares which exact word is used to market the idea - whichever one is most powerful and resonates with people will predominate (depending on success of course).

 

[soulman]

It's an interesting discussion. Like the OP I don't think precarity is anything new for workers (by that I also mean the unemployed, yet to be employed and those considered past employment). For most people earning enough to get by on has always been precarious.

The supposed post-war consensus on welfarism, the cradle to the grave welfare state was always a sham - a way of buying off any discontent from returning soldiers and the families of those who didn't return. It was being attacked as early as the 1950's by capitalists who resented for example the idea of social housing or universal education. They were concerned about a comfortable and educated workforce.

It was really out in the open in the 1970's when Keith Joseph and other Tories were openly attacking the idea of universal education, and plotting the destruction of the trade unions which they saw rightly or wrongly as an organised expression of class warfare. They won and we lost. The 80's and early 90's saw the dominance of free market values, the bastards partied, danced and waved their wads of cash as working class communities paid the price in so many ways.

With the election of a Labour government in 1997 lots of hopes were raised. The laws restricting the unions could be repealed, the destruction of social housing and community could be reversed, the concept of universal welfarism could be saved. The reality has been that the Labour party has continued the planned destruction of welfarism and its replacement with privatised, free market capitalism.

During this restructuring life has become ever more precarious for workers. Not only those working now but also those who payed into the idea of universal welfare, from the cradle to the grave, and are now being forced through increasingly difficult means tests to recover the benefits they payed for. That's how it is now with a retirement age of 60/65.

If they get their way the age of retirement from 'work' will increase to meet our life expectantcy. The more I hear about their plans the less inclined I feel to work. The longer we live the more we're expected to make profits for them, even die on the job if need be.

Bollocks to that and fuck them for even thinking people will accept it.

 

[sovietpop]

Good post.

 

[sovietpop]

Interested in doing some research on this area myself, interestingly I came across an article called "The Power Of Nightmares: Phantom Job Insecurity and Demoralisation" that pretty much cuts .

That's very good, thanks for the link.

 

[Top Dog]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think the word 'precarity' isn't purely about casualisation. As I understand it, it also applies to other "precarities" that people live under, such as the enormous number of semi-legal or illegal migrant labourers, the pressure of living under debt and so on. I also don't see the problem with 'precarious' as a word?...

agree with all of this gurrier. Whatever the term is called, the effect of the condition is to impose and intensify capital's discipline of the w/c. UK has over a £trillion of personal debt, The idea of social housing for tha many is now a nice memory, the rest of us buckling under mortgages. Pensions crisis - work til you drop dead.

Ive mentioned this on another thread somewhere but what has been noticed is that because of the above, we're seeing the beginnings (very early to call it a trend, i admit) of the pre-war situation of 3 generations to a household. The young cannot afford to move out of the parental home, the older members unable to afford the cost of care etc. I dont see how the anglo-saxon 'casualisation' describes adequately any of the above. It is the whole of life that has been made precarious, because capital has subsumed every area of life. The Fordist experience that capital only seemed to affect you while you were creating surplus value between the hours of 9-5 and then you had some relative autonomy to go home and tend to your vegetable patch is no longer the case for increasingly large numbers of people.

 

[Top Dog]

yep good post soulman

 

[Rob Ray]

But again, I don't think precarity is what you want to be using to describe it if you are using the word in such sweeping terms, and it comes across as yet more leftist jargon (and if there's one thing which alienates the left from its audience, it's jargon no-one else understands).

If I was talking to people about personal debt, I'd talk to them about personal debt I wouldn't go up them and say 'yeah loads of people are in precarity' because a) I then have to spend time I would be using to agitate to explain what I mean b) I come off as a pretentious tosser. Same thing applies to casualisation of labour, and mortgages.

It may sound good in leftist circles and be a handy summation, but it would fail a vox pop test (ask ten random people in the street what they think about precarity...), which should fundamentally be the litmus test for any agitprop group aiming to interest people.

 

[Top Dog]

But again, I don't think precarity is what you want to be using to describe it if you are using the word in such sweeping terms, and it comes across as yet more leftist jargon (and if there's one thing which alienates the left from its audience, it's jargon no-one else understands)...

These will be my last points about the word 'precarity' rather than the condition itself - its starting to sidetrack [again] what is actually a more interesting discussion imo

Firstly - i dont know anyone irl (and no one here on urban so far) that has suggested we shouldnt use terms like 'debt' to talk about debt or 'pensions' if we're talking about pensions, so that's a null point. Your choice of language depends on your context, your audience... if one term is particularly unwieldy and confuses rather than enlightens, then you choose another. Its not about being precious over a word. But it sounds almost like you're saying that we should dumb down what are concepts because the words are not familiar? And all for fear of being seen as 'pretensious tossers'!

Secondly - language is a living thing. It evolves. And English in particular is a mongrel language of many roots, including a large part of latin origin. I'm sure that there were people complaining about terms like 'globalisation' 25 years ago as something that 'yer ordinary folk' would never get their honest, "'ard working 'eads" around. But but it is common currency today. Proletariat is also a 'foreign' word. What else should we throw out of the language that sounds strange or is not used in day to day parlance?

Thirdly - there is a need to understand at a macro level, whats going on with all these changes to our experience... how all the pieces fit together into contemporary capitalism and how our lives are being organised for us from the cradle to the grave - as soulman points out. I dont think there's a problem with political minorities (those geeks like us) who are interested in the minutiae of these problems using shorthand words to refer to over-arching processes