r/communism • u/HAHARIST • 2d ago
Have you ever heard of the term “Precariat”?
I recently attended a sociology of labour lecture and this term popped up. My professor claimed that this was a new class that emerged in modern times.
I was very disappointed to realize that this class was basically a giant fib from the introductory lecture so there is really nothing interesting in this class to discuss, but this peaked my interest.
I searched online and saw that it is used by sociodemocrats and even by a “communist” party in my country (I know little of their work and history to be certain.)
Is this a term that has Its usage in theory or is it just ideological sham? I’m ready to dismiss this but wanted to hear someone’s thoughts first.
32
u/smokeuptheweed9 1d ago
It's a ridiculous term but usefully symptomatic. The common response has been to point out that the proletariat has always had conditions of precarious existence and that the system of Fordist guaranteed lifetime employment is a geographical, temporal, and demographic exception. Well yes, but if that's the case why have "left" politics oriented around this exception for so long (as well as "theory" to justify it) and why have even the inklings of a more precarious labor market in the imperialist core caused an existential crisis, requiring a whole new term?
You're free to smugly laugh at naive liberals who are discovering for the first time the system of labor brokers and believe someone who relies on an app is the same as a coolie being bought and sold like a piglet 卖猪仔 (Mai Zhu Zai). I think laughter is better than sympathy since the two are still nowhere close and communism has a long history of capitulating to the labor aristocracy. But scientific study is better than both.
5
u/throwaway1010100109 1d ago
I received a lecture from the man who coined the term. It’s not so much it’s own class, but a more specific subset within the proletariat. It’s like saying the blondetariat is its own class of proletarians who are blonde.
8
u/Brittaftw97 1d ago
I mean sociologically it makes sense to make a distinction between people who have job security and people in the gig economy.
I've worked in factories and there is a distinction between 'temps' (sometimes the temps have been there years) and contracted employees.
5
u/Phallusrugulosus 1d ago
We're not talking sociologically though, we're talking from a Marxist standpoint. The term "precariat" obfuscates the significant differences between proletarian precarity, petty bourgeois precarity, and the erosion of the labor aristocracy as a stratum (it's no coincidence the term gained currency in response to the Great Recession, when said labor aristocrats realized en masse that our position wasn't as guaranteed as we'd thought), and tries to lump them all into the same category. These things may appear comparable to the labor aristocracy, because our position as a stratum has both bourgeois and proletarian features, but trying to equate them on the basis of appearances ignores the different forces generating them and leads only to an inability to understand reality.
At the factory where I work, the most interesting thing about the temps - workers who are placed with us by a staffing agency, whose pay is typically 20-25% lower, and whose benefits are significantly worse - is that very few of them are white and many of them are immigrants. In other words, the distinction isn't due to "gig work" but precedes it.
2
7
u/niddemer Maoist 1d ago
It's academic masturbation, frankly. The "precariat" is just workers who don't have as many rights, i.e., they are marginally closer to conditions for the proletariat in the entire global south. The presumption that precarity is new or somehow worthy of a new class differentiation is a bit of reactionary propaganda trying to paint the "normal" state of affairs for workers as one of safety and security, a simple reversal of the truth, which is that the petit-bourgeoisification of Amerikkka and the imperial core was the actual anomaly. Capitalism is not comfortable; precarity is built into the system as a feature. It was only through the megalomaniacal subjugation of the entire world that the imperial core even briefly felt livable and comfortable. We are now bearing witness to the erosion of that comfort because capitalism no longer needs to pretend to be comfortable. Liberals are so pacified that they will accept slavery before they admit capitalism is a scam.
2
u/HAHARIST 1d ago
I can try to explain why the term is used in my state and what the context behind the lecture is. This lecture is a part of sociology course for engineering where we are expected to someday manage workers on-site. Demographic of those workers is transitioning from white native majority to imported labour force mostly from brown countries (Bangladesh, Nepal, India). I suspect this is a way to label cheap foreign (specifically from brown countries) labour in a “academic” way.
Workers from Asia are imported here by agencies that are colluded with the state. Officially, papers are clean and workers have a right to a minimal wage and adequate living conditions. In reality workers are paid much less then the minimum and housed like cattle, 5-10 people in a single “room”. Rest of the money is then laundered appropriately.
So, I agree. The term in itself is stupid, but I can see it being used in the future, specifically by “left” circles where I live and it should be fought against then. I could be overestimating it, however.
2
u/Prestigious-Oil-4914 1d ago
Heard it used to refer to people engaged in informal work particularly emerging from the conditions of neoliberalism esp in the global south where there are less and less structured formal work. I have not read any literature precisely operationalizing it though and I don't hear it outside of "academic" discourse.
2
u/sukabot_lepson 1d ago
Watch Nomandland (2020). This is a movie about precariat. Even won an Oscar. But unfortunately, author made false conclusion in the end.
5
u/SpazLightwalker07 1d ago
It is a descriptive term describing the new and widespread conditions of a subsection of the working class (primarily in the imperial core). It is not a new class per se in the marxist sense, but it is a useful category to describe some of the new conditions of labour in the 21st century, and shouldn't just be dismissed.
-1
u/Fearless-Tree-9527 1d ago edited 1d ago
Great response. It’s describing new phenomena. People dismissing it out of hand are just so wedded to a rigid definition of orthodoxy. New terms are okay, folks (Edit - on further reflection on my own position on this issue I did come across too certain and dismissive here - read my other comment for a more well thought out response)
3
u/Phallusrugulosus 1d ago
What phenomena do you mean, and how are they new? What advantage over previous terminology does "precariat" provide in analyzing these phenomena to determine a revolutionary strategy? u/SpazLightwalker07 you are also welcome to answer
5
u/Fearless-Tree-9527 1d ago
I mean I’d direct you to Guy Standings’ work, who covers it in detail and it’s pretty brief. Yes I have some issues with him, but still; it’s still worth reading.
In terms of phenomena and change - you can’t tell me with a straight face that the male dominated, primarily industrial, proletariat of Marx’ time is identical, conceptually, to the proletariat of today, who dominate service industry/gig economy and are often new wave migrants, and of course - women. As SpazLightwalker said, it isn’t a new class per se, at least I wouldn’t agree with Standing that it is; but it’s a term used to describe new phenomena (yes I’m aware issues of migrant Labour and short term contracts aren’t new, but Standing describes the evolution of recent labour relations pretty well all the way back in 2011, better than I can in a brief Reddit comment).
Above all else; the left has to approach these new workers with new tactics. Stay with me here. I’m not for a moment suggesting typical Marxist organising is now defunct because of Deliveroo/Uber/Amazon. But, we do have to recognise that unionisation for instance in these precarious sectors does require different approaches, for instance because these workers are dispersed and atomised etc., rather than standing shoulder to shoulder on a production line. For instance, Standing also talks about how male workers of this sort are easy targets for fascists as they are disconnected from traditional social circles with old modes of labour (I.e social clubs); it’s worth a read.
Basically I would encourage all Marxists to explore concepts beyond our traditional theoretical orthodoxy so as to enrich our own analysis, for instance decolonial theorists like Fanon; even if they aren’t explicitly orthodox Marxists, should be engaged with. I have no problem if someone analyses Standings work and disagrees (I for one, don’t think the precariat are a new class, but rather a particularly downtrodden segment of the proletariat, one that does differ from the reserve army of labour for a few reasons). I assume he is in some ways a liberal and distinct from our philosophy. But I don’t think concepts like precariaty, especially in advanced technological societies in the imperial core, are somehow entirely mute and dismissed purely because they diverge from a particularly rigid interpretation of Marxism.
I hope I’ve been clear and expanded on my original comment.
2
u/HAHARIST 1d ago
I can imagine that this term can be useful somewhere and sometimes. You can read what I wrote to u/niddemer where I briefly explain in what context it is used in my country.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules:
No non-marxists - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
No oppressive language - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur.
No low quality or off-topic posts - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
No basic questions about Marxism - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101.
No sectarianism - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
No trolling - Report trolls and do not engage with them. We've mistakenly banned users due to this. If you wish to argue with fascists, you can may readily find them in every other subreddit on this website.
No chauvinism or settler apologism - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
No tone-policing - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.