"Only a basic income can offer security to the precariat"

"We need collectives to represent the precariat against the state, which is its main antagonist."

As part of a short tour through Madrid and Barcelona on 17 and 18 December 2014, British sociologist and economist Guy Standing presented the Spanish edition of his latest book, A Precariat Charter: from denizens to citizens (Bloomsbury Academic, 2014). The event at the Faculty of Law was organised by the UAB Institute of Employment Studies (IET) and included the participation of Eduardo Rojo, professor in employment law, and Antonio Martín, professor of sociology and director of IET.

In his book, Standing calls out to different political groups to demand social reforms which can guarantee the right to financial security, given that the precariat (immigrants, the educated young, people who no longer form part of the traditional working class, etc.) not only are victims of job insecurity but also of a lack of social and democratic rights.

Do you consider the precariat to be part of the working class?

I don't think the old labels are appropriate. It is very important to differentiate between different types of classes appropriate for global capitalism: a fragmented system in which there are a smaller and smaller number of people who are part of a salariat, with employment security, pensions, paid holidays, etc. The precariat is growing and is being subject to pressures to accept a life of unstable labour. One of its problems is the lack of an occupational identity. The old proletariat was exploited and oppressed in workplaces, by clocking in and out; today, the precariat is increasingly subject to exploitation at all times, day and night. They are only paid for a certain number of hours, but are expected to work outside hours, to spend time retraining, applying for benefits, etc. This is something fundamentally different between the two groups.

Do you think it is possible to restore a unitary identity of the working class?

It's debatable whether there has ever been a common identity. Today however it doesn't help to put all these different groups into one unified concept when dealing with analysis, political strategy or as a social science. I believe the precariat has a different consciousness of what freedom or liberation means. What is exciting about the growth of the precariat is that although many people experience insecurities, anxiety, anomy and alienation, they are not suffering from false consciousness; they do not think their jobs will be the source of their lifetime satisfaction. This gives them a distance that enables them to take a Bohemian approach, in a sense. They can be liberated and look for a revival of a sense of future, a sense of creating a better society. And I quote a piece of graffiti from a wall of the indignados in Madrid which said: "The worst thing would be to go back to the old normal". And this is a very subversive piece of graffiti.

What role can the unions play here?

The unions have a very difficult position. I've always supported the concept of collective organisations; the trouble with the labour unions of the 20th century is that they fought for labour. Now, many forms of work are not labour, and these forms were ignored by the old unions, just as they were ignored by the social democratic parties. And they lost any sense of legitimacy as the precariat has developed. I think that the old agenda of the trade unions has to be fundamentally changed, and they have to remake themselves in the light of this development. This will take a long time, but we absolutely need collective bodies to represent us against the state, which is the primary antagonist for the precariat. The precariat is actually a dangerous class because it rejects the mainstream political ideologies of the 20th century. That does not mean that it is all populist, or anarchic, or anything similar. At the moment we are in a period of change, in which new movements likethe political party Podemos are struggling to forge an identity and a political agenda. And I hope my book contributes to drawing up a manifesto or a charter of demands seen from the perspective of the precariat.

How can an unconditional basic income contribute to developing the rights of the precariat?

This would mean that every person would be guaranteed a basic monthly income that would at least cover the real necessities of life. According to the constitutions, all governments are meant to be committed to that; but they are moving further and further away from that, producing growing inequality, insecurity and precariat. A basic income is the only way to give basic security. It's affordable, we need it to stimulate economic demand inside our countries, it is ethically justifiable and we've tried it in India, Africa, Canada and this demonstrated that if people have a basic income, they work more, not less and are more productive. This is contrary to what the prejudices of the far left and the far right. If you give people a basic income, they do not become lazier. With basic security, people are prepared to risk things, to take training courses, are more active in society, etc. It would boost economic activities and at the same time would give us a chance to be in control of our time more and care for our relatives, friends, the community. That is why I give so much attention in the book to the need to reconceptualise what we mean by work.

What role must higher education play to contribute to the precariat rights?

There's an article in the charter saying that we need to decommodify education. With the commercialisation and privatisation of education, the elite can still receive a culturally enriching education: philosophy, culture, history, ideas, etc. But the precariat is being pushed to accept a job-preparation form of schooling, in which they have no access to culturally developing forms of education. We are moving into a situation in which more and more people do not know their own history, cultural issues and great ideas. That makes them less able to understand politics and the system and are easier to be led by politicians with charisma and simple messages: such as populists and neo-fascists. I'm afraid that's what happening in the United States, in Great Britain, all of Europe and many other countries. We need to restore the right of everybody to have a culturally enriching education.