At 04:35 PM 1/13/2012, Sean Andrews wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 13:23, Bhaskar Sunkara
><bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com>wrote: > 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.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)