Here’s an article for the upcoming issue of Fifth Estate (http://www.fifthestate.org) which will also have stff on class composition, the autonomy of migration, and other autonomous related things.
(more…)

I’ve been reading the record of the IWW founding. Found this, in a pamphlet presented to the convention:

"A minority of the members of society own and control the means of production and distribution, and, as a result, are able to dictate the terms of life to the many. The workers having aspirations above a life in which the conditions are hard and precarious, and in which the life of the toiler is sacrificed without stint that the cupidity of the capitalist may be satisfied, look for something better, and inquire as to the right of him who produces nothing receiving the greater part of the product of the community.

In the struggles of the rising capitalist class with decadent feudalism the worker was told that the master in the shop was his friend and the baron his enemy, and, as a consequence, the toiler fought the battles of his immediate exploiter to a successful issue. This accomplished, it was found that he had but changed one master for another, and that he was more mercilessly exploited under capitalism than had been the case under the old regime."

(via). 

PRECARITY: A SAVAGE JOURNEY TO THE HEART OF EMBODIED CAPITALISM

Vassilis Tsianos [University of Hamburg] and Dimitris Papadopoulos [Cardiff University]

A. Introduction

There is an underlying assumption to the current debates about class composition in post-Fordism: this is the assumption that immaterial work and its corresponding social subjects form the centre of gravity in the new turbulent cycles of struggles around living labour. This paper explores the theoretical and political implications of this assumption, its promises and closures. Is immaterial labour the condition out of which a radical socio-political transformation of contemporary post-Fordist capitalism can emerge? Who’s afraid of immaterial workers today? (more…)