> Igniting a bit of a strong response, but not mostly for what I say, but
> rather things that I don't actually disagree with but didn't fit within the
> scope of the piece...
> http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/01/precarious-thought/
>
> Angry responses, as per usual, are welcome.
>
>
just posted this comment to the blog, but here it is for possible
discussion here:
I think your critique is spot on. The idea of the precariat as a class in itself is very problematic as its posed and it definitely ignores the larger analysis of class - replicating, as you say, the kind of inane analysis of autonomists, et. al. on immaterial labor. Creating broader alliances seems essential to moving things forward so partitioning the labor force into even smaller categories seems beyond counter-productive.
And, most importantly, I don't think it can be said enough that the changes we are experiencing are not due to technology. This passage is essential:
"But technology (changes in the means of production) is just a veneer. Evolutions in the structure of work do not inherently lead to changes in the conditions of work (the relations of production). It’s an odd sort of determinism that says that new labor forms necessarily be more precarious than industrial employment."
Buying into the notion that our precariousness - anyone's precariousness - is due to technology is lazy and accommodates the neoliberal project we should be fighting against.