To be honest I don’t think I really understand Federico Campagna’s “Happy Precarity” at all.
Here’s
what I understand him to be saying. The desire for fluid living in the 70s,
the escape from 9 to 5 drudgery into more autonomous forms of
“self-employment” have shifted from a liberatory “line of flight” to a
generalized state of “precarity”. We must not abandon the commitment to
Fluidity and Precarity, i.e re-attach ourselves to discredited
institutions such as Labour parties and Unions, the social democratic
model of the State etc but instead reclaim the liberatory potential of
precarity, the conditions for which are now really, actually present in a
way they weren’t before because of (ta-da!) the Internet, or more
specifically the deep-net a kind of Utopian inner space (rather
tellingly eroticized, exotisized and orientalised here in Campagna’s
representative choices of the Silk Road and platforms for online sex
work) putatively permanently beyond the reach of Capitalism. The medium
of exchange being that indisputably revolutionary and unregulatable
new currency, Bitcoin! ( I winced a bit while reading it, just a day
after this.)
There
are couple of things I don’t get here, and maybe that’s because I am
ignorant about Autonomia, though like any good comrogue I listen to
Novara (and, like everyone else presumably, have developed an unseemly
crush on James Butler) and did read half of Bifo’s “Precarious
Rhapsody” last Summer (though it seemed to be all over the place and not
really worth plowing through to the end of. Maybe I should return to
it.) Then again. presumably this short essay is also supposed to serve
as a persuasive introduction to its importance and relevance.
Basically
though I can’t see any huge distinction between this happy precarity of
disintermediated autonomous exchange and alternate “competitive”
currencies to the arguments of Randians/ Rothbardian
Anarcho-capitalists. They also want a labour market in which the
government doesn’t have monopolistic control over the currency and in
which onerous regulations are swept aside in favour of a purer market
structure, one in which I and the Employer/Customer encounter each other
face to face without the distorting effects of the State. Campagna’s
marketplace of happy precarity seems to be Adam Smith’s invisible hand
sweetened with a dash of affectivity, “a union of egoists” sounding not
unlike Smiths butcher, brewer and baker
but with added benevolence, because all egoists (here I understand this
to mean those not constructed through “terroristic” metanarratives,
religion, Marxism etc, “freethinkers” in other designations “bohemians”
the “counterculture” etc) must, in recognizing the right to otherness as
constitutive of their own subjectivity, automatically respect that
right in others.
In
a sense then the pursuit of self interest not only guarantees us the
goods and services we demand/require but also the sociality that we
yearn for, if only the State would get out of the way. Thus from the
state, that coldest of all cold monsters, we are also affectively
destituted. The essay in no way question the assumption that a
certain kind of “egotistical calculation” is the problem, the problem
here is (as for many on the anti-statist right) that the state distorts
both the affective/social and economic
markets from fulfilling their potential. Libertarians wouldn’t care
much about the affective dimension, they are too ruggedly
individualistic for that, but I’d struggle to see why what’s proposed
here is much different. From a true market exchange all good things
will flow, here the true market is a really existing “immanent” Arcadia
called the deep-web, a kind of “Autonomia of everyday life” that
requires but some skilled midwifery in order to radically alter and
de-alienate relations of all kinds among men. Friendship is, after all,
just another form of utility maximisation.
The book is available here. It’s a quid!
As
an aside, not to get too anti-Utopian and raise practical transitional
questions rather than assuming that immanent tendencies will somehow
burgeon and sweep away the existing order in a happily bloodless circumventing of the state and the withering away of its repressive
capacity because now we have mesh networking and e-currencies and social
media, I am myself a precarious worker here in Japan, a freelance
English teacher. And I would consider myself to be in a state of happy
precarity for a couple of reasons, but primarily because I can pay my
month’s rent and bills in the centre of Fukuoka (considered one of the
20 best cities to live in globally by Monocle magazine, so whatever your
tastes, no slouch infrastructure and services-wise) on three hours work
plus travelling stipend a week. If I also do a few hours on a Saturday
afternoon I can eat for the month and have a bit of leisure (though
given that my leisure is basically the internet it’s not a huge
expense). That’s right, my rent is low and I am comparatively well paid
per hour (and I enjoy my job, lucky me) but even a worker on minimum
wage would be able to rent their own place here (Fukuoka), eat and
crucially ( for the Japanese), have a mobile, they would also be able to
find that work quite easily and quickly. That’s why, right now I am not
in London, or Tokyo. My happy precarity is predicated on low rent and
the potentially huge looming oversupply in the Japanese housing market
outside Tokyo, on the long period of deflation post bubble plus
relatively stable wages.Some pretty heavy macro-economic and demographic considerations in other words.
Now
I would love to be able to transfer my happy precarity back home.
What’s the plan for increasing housing supply/reducing housing costs
drastically in the UK, as an affordable and secure, reasonably
comfortable dwelling place seems to me the fundamental prerequisite for
any kind of happiness, especially a happy precarity. Is the
disintermediated deep-web going to get more affordable houses built or
radically reduce rents? I have often rented in London via that
traditional form of disintermediation, the dusty precursor to the
liberatory depths of deepnet, the Post Office window, me and the
landlord one to one!
He still wanted “the going rate”.
1 comment:
Everytime you actually start talking practicalities a theorist loses its wings.
Post a Comment