What do you think?
Rate this book
Precariado: Una carta de derechos
En su libro El precariado. Una nueva clase social, Guy Standing introducía el concepto de «precariado» como una clase masiva emergente a la que se le han negado derechos políticos, civiles, sociales y económicos, y caracterizada por una creciente desigualdad e inseguridad. De una naturaleza cada vez más global, el precariado se ha convertido en un fenómeno social, reivindicado por movimientos como Occupy Wall Street o el 15M. Pero esta masa no es una simple víctima, es también un agente dinámico de cambio social. El autor nos habla de la importancia de redefinir nuestro contrato social alrededor de las nociones de libertad asociacional, agencia y comunes.
Un texto indispensable, no solo porque pone al día el marco teórico desarrollado en su libro anterior, sino porque ofrece un detallado programa político para acabar con las desigualdades extremas que la globalización neoliberal ha generado. Su concepto y sus conclusiones han sido admiradas extensamente por pensadores de la talla de Noam Chomsky o Zygmunt Bauman, y por muchas destacadas figuras del activismo político. Esta carta de derechos es un regalo para aquellos que aspiran a forjar una nueva sociedad, en la que el trabajo humano tenga significado y los derechos de los trabajadores sean totalmente respetados.
Un texto indispensable, no solo porque pone al día el marco teórico desarrollado en su libro anterior, sino porque ofrece un detallado programa político para acabar con las desigualdades extremas que la globalización neoliberal ha generado. Su concepto y sus conclusiones han sido admiradas extensamente por pensadores de la talla de Noam Chomsky o Zygmunt Bauman, y por muchas destacadas figuras del activismo político. Esta carta de derechos es un regalo para aquellos que aspiran a forjar una nueva sociedad, en la que el trabajo humano tenga significado y los derechos de los trabajadores sean totalmente respetados.
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
About the author
Guy Standing
57 books185 followersGuy Standing is a British professor of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, and co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN).
Standing has written widely in the areas of labour economics, labour market policy, unemployment, labour market flexibility, structural adjustment policies and social protection. His recent work has concerned the emerging precariat class and the need to move towards unconditional basic income and deliberative democracy.
Standing has written widely in the areas of labour economics, labour market policy, unemployment, labour market flexibility, structural adjustment policies and social protection. His recent work has concerned the emerging precariat class and the need to move towards unconditional basic income and deliberative democracy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 16, 2026
The idea of a social class is much more complicated than people give it credit for. And this is true of any category you might think of. The word, ‘category’ is also interesting. It is from Ancient Greek, and it originally meant to publicly accuse someone. I think that is a useful thing to remember. The important thing about classes is that they are social relations. Although it is from the Latin to divide up, it is really not the division that is important here, but the rule you use to do the dividing. If the classes you end up with are to have any sense, they have to be related to each other in ways that make social sense. You can divide society up in lots of different ways – and each of them can make reasonable sense. You can divide it by gender, by religion, by ethnicity, by race – and we do. But we don’t tend to talk about these divisions as classes. Social classes are almost always in economic relationships with each other. For Marx, previous types of society – slavery or feudalism say – had a plethora of different classes. But he felt that capitalism increasingly simplified the economic relationships in society down to two – those who owned the means of production and those who did not. When he talked of the proletariat, from the Latin for ‘propertyless’, he didn’t mean people who owned nothing at all, but rather people who did not own anything they could use to sustain themselves economically, and who were, therefore, required to sell their labour if they were going to make a living. They sold this to the capitalist class, who owned the means of production and therefore could buy the labour the proletariat were selling. He saw the path of capitalism as moving ever closer to a state where the intermediate classes were disappearing – craftsmen, farmers, doctors – all people who owned something that meant they could avoid having to sell their labour to someone else as their only means of subsistence.
Other sociologists have claimed there are many more social classes, and so divide the world up in different ways. This book is one of them. And yet, as he makes clear at the beginning of the book, these multiple classes are still in relation with all the others. The author has six classes in society: the plutocracy, the proficians, the salariat, the core (Marx’s proletariat), the precariat and the lumpen-precariat (what Marx called the lumpen-proletariat). But this book is concerned mostly with the precariat. Bauman says somewhere that precariat is from a French word that means to walk on shifting sands – Google says it is a portmanteau of the English words ‘precarious’ and ‘proletariat’. Both etymologies tell you much the same thing.
Now, I’m not sure Marx would agree with him about these new social classes. But his solution to the problems we are facing, and why talking of a precariat makes intuitive sense to us, would certainly go some way to creating such a class – even while retaining Marx’s idea that the historical task of this class is to abolish both itself and all other classes.
We need, I’m afraid, some other definitions too. The first is something he has borrowed from Hannah Arendt – the difference between work and labour. She says in The Human Condition that every European language has these two words, but people generally think they are synonyms. She says what differentiates them is that work is creative and engaging, while labour is dull and repetitive. Work is productive – it generally makes something new – while labour is reproductive, you have to do it to sustain life, but there is very little joy associated with it. She also talks of action – which she sees as the highest form of human agency – something he basically comes to as well, without naming it as such.
We also have to mention the Chartists. This was an early movement of the working class in England who proposed a charter of rights, all of which were bitterly opposed in their day, and most of which are now mostly taken for granted – universal male suffrage, equally sized electorates, being paid to be a politician. His solution to our current problems is to propose a new charter of rights for society – and the proposals for the articles of this charter make up the bulk of the book.
His central claim is that the precariat are a new class, even if they are yet to become a class with clearly defined aims and objectives, but that eventually they will recognise the common aspects of their lives that make them a distinct class and will move towards creating a society where they achieve a new social contract. He sees the precariat as including an ever-greater proportion of society. Now, he admits that there are different strata in this new social class – which he includes the disabled, those who only get snatches of jobs, casual employees, Uber drivers, temporary employees, the unemployed. That is, many, many people who have few things in common other than not having ongoing, secure employment. Notice that you can have a PhD or have not finished high school and still belong in the precariat. He says that many in the precariat who now have quite a different relationship to labour to that espoused by the old parties of the left – the Labour Parties or even the Communists. That is, they don’t see labour as being noble, but as drudgery and a waste of life. Yet, the old parties of the left define themselves in relation to labour. Australia’s first female prime minister said that the Labor Party is the party of the alarm clock. You don’t have to wait long to hear a politician of the left talk about mutual obligation.
In part, he talks about labour in ways that are similar to feminist economists. He says that labour should properly be defined as things you are forced to do, not just what you are paid to do. And this includes all of the things you are forced to do to qualify for social assistance – filling in endless forms, attending various ‘retraining’, applying for jobs that don’t exist. These forms of soul-destroying labour are mostly pointless, but serve a social purpose in that they make the precariat feel responsible for their situation. Oh, the other thing I haven’t defined is the difference between citizens and denizens. A denizen was someone who pretty much fits Simmel’s definition of ‘the stranger’ – that is, someone, normally a foreigner, who has a ‘sort of’ right to live and work in a society, but has none of the other rights that a full citizen has. He says that the precariat increasingly are treated as denizens, rather than citizens.
I’m not sure I agree with him on all of this. As far as I can see, the precariat are still stuck in Marx’s relation to production. They are without a means to reproduce their lives without selling their labour. Marx even says somewhere, probably Capital, that the capitalists would much rather pay their workers piecemeal than a weekly wage. We seem to have increasingly moved to just that. One of the ways he believes we will move towards a new social organisation is if we introduce a universal basic income. I have my doubts that that is likely. In fact, many of the ways he sees us moving towards a more just and equitable society sound a bit like ‘raising class consciousness’ – but it isn’t clear to me how that will be achieved. This is also central to Richard Sennett’s ideas – that what we need isn’t the social revolution that Marx spoke of, but rather the hard work of building community. I’m not sure the two things are necessarily opposites, but I also can’t see the movement that is forming to push either of these ideas to the fore. So that even if the precariat is a class ‘in-itself’, I can’t see how it can become a class ‘for-itself’ – and organise in such a way that it can push its interests and change society in the process. He sees this as centring around a new charter – but I’m not convinced.
I came away from this book thinking I wanted more – it wasn’t nearly as utopian as I expected it might become, but it still seemed less practical than I think the author believes it to be. I believe we are probably approaching an inflection point – where the utter greed and unfair distribution of wealth towards the plutocracy has reached a stage where eventually something is going to have to give. I’ve no idea how that change might come about – but I’m not convinced that a new charter is going to be nearly enough.
Other sociologists have claimed there are many more social classes, and so divide the world up in different ways. This book is one of them. And yet, as he makes clear at the beginning of the book, these multiple classes are still in relation with all the others. The author has six classes in society: the plutocracy, the proficians, the salariat, the core (Marx’s proletariat), the precariat and the lumpen-precariat (what Marx called the lumpen-proletariat). But this book is concerned mostly with the precariat. Bauman says somewhere that precariat is from a French word that means to walk on shifting sands – Google says it is a portmanteau of the English words ‘precarious’ and ‘proletariat’. Both etymologies tell you much the same thing.
Now, I’m not sure Marx would agree with him about these new social classes. But his solution to the problems we are facing, and why talking of a precariat makes intuitive sense to us, would certainly go some way to creating such a class – even while retaining Marx’s idea that the historical task of this class is to abolish both itself and all other classes.
We need, I’m afraid, some other definitions too. The first is something he has borrowed from Hannah Arendt – the difference between work and labour. She says in The Human Condition that every European language has these two words, but people generally think they are synonyms. She says what differentiates them is that work is creative and engaging, while labour is dull and repetitive. Work is productive – it generally makes something new – while labour is reproductive, you have to do it to sustain life, but there is very little joy associated with it. She also talks of action – which she sees as the highest form of human agency – something he basically comes to as well, without naming it as such.
We also have to mention the Chartists. This was an early movement of the working class in England who proposed a charter of rights, all of which were bitterly opposed in their day, and most of which are now mostly taken for granted – universal male suffrage, equally sized electorates, being paid to be a politician. His solution to our current problems is to propose a new charter of rights for society – and the proposals for the articles of this charter make up the bulk of the book.
His central claim is that the precariat are a new class, even if they are yet to become a class with clearly defined aims and objectives, but that eventually they will recognise the common aspects of their lives that make them a distinct class and will move towards creating a society where they achieve a new social contract. He sees the precariat as including an ever-greater proportion of society. Now, he admits that there are different strata in this new social class – which he includes the disabled, those who only get snatches of jobs, casual employees, Uber drivers, temporary employees, the unemployed. That is, many, many people who have few things in common other than not having ongoing, secure employment. Notice that you can have a PhD or have not finished high school and still belong in the precariat. He says that many in the precariat who now have quite a different relationship to labour to that espoused by the old parties of the left – the Labour Parties or even the Communists. That is, they don’t see labour as being noble, but as drudgery and a waste of life. Yet, the old parties of the left define themselves in relation to labour. Australia’s first female prime minister said that the Labor Party is the party of the alarm clock. You don’t have to wait long to hear a politician of the left talk about mutual obligation.
In part, he talks about labour in ways that are similar to feminist economists. He says that labour should properly be defined as things you are forced to do, not just what you are paid to do. And this includes all of the things you are forced to do to qualify for social assistance – filling in endless forms, attending various ‘retraining’, applying for jobs that don’t exist. These forms of soul-destroying labour are mostly pointless, but serve a social purpose in that they make the precariat feel responsible for their situation. Oh, the other thing I haven’t defined is the difference between citizens and denizens. A denizen was someone who pretty much fits Simmel’s definition of ‘the stranger’ – that is, someone, normally a foreigner, who has a ‘sort of’ right to live and work in a society, but has none of the other rights that a full citizen has. He says that the precariat increasingly are treated as denizens, rather than citizens.
I’m not sure I agree with him on all of this. As far as I can see, the precariat are still stuck in Marx’s relation to production. They are without a means to reproduce their lives without selling their labour. Marx even says somewhere, probably Capital, that the capitalists would much rather pay their workers piecemeal than a weekly wage. We seem to have increasingly moved to just that. One of the ways he believes we will move towards a new social organisation is if we introduce a universal basic income. I have my doubts that that is likely. In fact, many of the ways he sees us moving towards a more just and equitable society sound a bit like ‘raising class consciousness’ – but it isn’t clear to me how that will be achieved. This is also central to Richard Sennett’s ideas – that what we need isn’t the social revolution that Marx spoke of, but rather the hard work of building community. I’m not sure the two things are necessarily opposites, but I also can’t see the movement that is forming to push either of these ideas to the fore. So that even if the precariat is a class ‘in-itself’, I can’t see how it can become a class ‘for-itself’ – and organise in such a way that it can push its interests and change society in the process. He sees this as centring around a new charter – but I’m not convinced.
I came away from this book thinking I wanted more – it wasn’t nearly as utopian as I expected it might become, but it still seemed less practical than I think the author believes it to be. I believe we are probably approaching an inflection point – where the utter greed and unfair distribution of wealth towards the plutocracy has reached a stage where eventually something is going to have to give. I’ve no idea how that change might come about – but I’m not convinced that a new charter is going to be nearly enough.
July 10, 2015
Terrific. A full read, about lots of things that our western societies could think about doing differently, so that those who are excluded, and their numbers seems to be ever increasing, could again be part of the included. Not saying that I agreed with every word or every idea, but he makes you think, makes you look at things in other ways. Which is always good!
October 11, 2016
Guy Standing is a man on a mission. This book is a battle cry rather than an academic treatise. Standing wants to rally the "precariat" (whom he hopes will discover itself as an active political collective force) against the evil horde of "neoliberals," "utilitarians" and other demons.
He is known as one of the biggest champions of the unconditional basic income, but the most of the book deals with other proposals, ranging from the commonplace (keeping libraries and hospitals accessible to low-income communities) to the utopian (dismissing all growth-based economics, getting rid of subsidies, reinventing occupational guilds as hubs of democracy and social solidarity).
Many of his proposals make a lot of economic sense; many others are dubious. (Deciding which ones fall into which category admittedly depends on the prejudices of the reader.) I found his arguments for basic income, sovereign wealth funds, ending paternalism, slashing subsidies and cutting down bureaucracy convincing; but even here, he unfortunately he betrays his own principles. While railing against neoliberal intrusiveness, he demands more (supposedly non-neoliberal and thus better) social, political and ecological committees to be set. While arguing well against too rigid regulation of labour markets, he demands more social oversight of markets, and more decision-making power to be granted to syndicalist monopolies and deliberative democratic organizations. In many other ways, it is not clear that the imagined "precariat-run" state would not be at least as intrusive, bureaucratic and oppressive as the so-called neoliberal, utilitarian state.
In style, the book is a mixed bag. As a manifesto, it is lacking in analytical appeal. Many of his proposals, and the crucial arguments for them, are not fully developed; only posited as necessary or obvious - often with an emotional appeal to justice. The rhetoric, too, is often pungently odious.
A particular failure - and a surprising one - is the choice of enemy. Iniquitously, Standing rails against "utilitarians", who he claims are behind the attempts to take power away from minorities, seemingly without being aware of the complex philosophical underpinnings and debates of the movement that began with Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and John Stuart Mill. It is simply not true that "utilitarianism" is the cause of the contemporary "neoliberal" control state. It is true that many utilitarians have proposed outrageous things; and it is true that Jeremy Bentham was in favour of various "discipline and punish" regimes; but e.g. John Stuart Mill, who is often considered the father of utilitarianism, was a fierce anti-paternalist, champion of minority rights, and one of the most outspoken defenders of the inviolable liberty of individuals against state interference. This seems to be a case of the author not really knowing what he is talking about; or not caring.
The book feels sloppily written, although well-researched. The scarcity of well-argued solutions is a shame, since the issues discussed are very important, and few people have analyzed the "precarious" condition of contemporary low-income people - whom he names denizens, stripped of many of the cherished rights of citizens - as passionately as the author. He has pinpointed a real problem - the lack of citizens' rights, the lack of liberty, the lack of social solidarity, the lack of economic security - but only a half of his solutions are workable. A few are golden. Some need development. The rest are different varieties of bad, disappointing, sour, sickly and nightmareish.
As a storage room of half-developed, half-brilliant ideas, and as an exposé of a real problem, the book is worth reading. But the remedy could be worse than the disease. Not all of the wild ideas of the book should be implemented. Some of his literally dozens of proposals are undoubtedly useful, for particular people and particular circumstances, but they should be analyzed critically before rallying up the new class for another class war - especially one against an enemy as mysterious and phantasmagorical as "utilitarians" and "neoliberals." While the pain of the present condition, for many people, is all too real, the pleasure of a misguided revolution would be short-lived. It is better to opt for reforms. The dystopian hues of the utopian paradise are never far from the surface.
Call me dull, but perhaps we need less of class-analysis, less fiery rhetoric and less scapegoating, and more calm rational analysis. Champions of the precariat need to proceed from the recognition that even the utilitarians, the neoliberals and the social democrats have a point. They are not evil, only mistaken. From that shared recognition, the discussion can proceed, people can debate, and we can posit the needed changes towards basic income and other forms of justice for the 21st century.
He is known as one of the biggest champions of the unconditional basic income, but the most of the book deals with other proposals, ranging from the commonplace (keeping libraries and hospitals accessible to low-income communities) to the utopian (dismissing all growth-based economics, getting rid of subsidies, reinventing occupational guilds as hubs of democracy and social solidarity).
Many of his proposals make a lot of economic sense; many others are dubious. (Deciding which ones fall into which category admittedly depends on the prejudices of the reader.) I found his arguments for basic income, sovereign wealth funds, ending paternalism, slashing subsidies and cutting down bureaucracy convincing; but even here, he unfortunately he betrays his own principles. While railing against neoliberal intrusiveness, he demands more (supposedly non-neoliberal and thus better) social, political and ecological committees to be set. While arguing well against too rigid regulation of labour markets, he demands more social oversight of markets, and more decision-making power to be granted to syndicalist monopolies and deliberative democratic organizations. In many other ways, it is not clear that the imagined "precariat-run" state would not be at least as intrusive, bureaucratic and oppressive as the so-called neoliberal, utilitarian state.
In style, the book is a mixed bag. As a manifesto, it is lacking in analytical appeal. Many of his proposals, and the crucial arguments for them, are not fully developed; only posited as necessary or obvious - often with an emotional appeal to justice. The rhetoric, too, is often pungently odious.
A particular failure - and a surprising one - is the choice of enemy. Iniquitously, Standing rails against "utilitarians", who he claims are behind the attempts to take power away from minorities, seemingly without being aware of the complex philosophical underpinnings and debates of the movement that began with Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and John Stuart Mill. It is simply not true that "utilitarianism" is the cause of the contemporary "neoliberal" control state. It is true that many utilitarians have proposed outrageous things; and it is true that Jeremy Bentham was in favour of various "discipline and punish" regimes; but e.g. John Stuart Mill, who is often considered the father of utilitarianism, was a fierce anti-paternalist, champion of minority rights, and one of the most outspoken defenders of the inviolable liberty of individuals against state interference. This seems to be a case of the author not really knowing what he is talking about; or not caring.
The book feels sloppily written, although well-researched. The scarcity of well-argued solutions is a shame, since the issues discussed are very important, and few people have analyzed the "precarious" condition of contemporary low-income people - whom he names denizens, stripped of many of the cherished rights of citizens - as passionately as the author. He has pinpointed a real problem - the lack of citizens' rights, the lack of liberty, the lack of social solidarity, the lack of economic security - but only a half of his solutions are workable. A few are golden. Some need development. The rest are different varieties of bad, disappointing, sour, sickly and nightmareish.
As a storage room of half-developed, half-brilliant ideas, and as an exposé of a real problem, the book is worth reading. But the remedy could be worse than the disease. Not all of the wild ideas of the book should be implemented. Some of his literally dozens of proposals are undoubtedly useful, for particular people and particular circumstances, but they should be analyzed critically before rallying up the new class for another class war - especially one against an enemy as mysterious and phantasmagorical as "utilitarians" and "neoliberals." While the pain of the present condition, for many people, is all too real, the pleasure of a misguided revolution would be short-lived. It is better to opt for reforms. The dystopian hues of the utopian paradise are never far from the surface.
Call me dull, but perhaps we need less of class-analysis, less fiery rhetoric and less scapegoating, and more calm rational analysis. Champions of the precariat need to proceed from the recognition that even the utilitarians, the neoliberals and the social democrats have a point. They are not evil, only mistaken. From that shared recognition, the discussion can proceed, people can debate, and we can posit the needed changes towards basic income and other forms of justice for the 21st century.
November 30, 2017
Standing’in Prekarya: Yeni Tehlikeli Sınıf kitabı ile birlikte ortaya çıkan Prekarya’nın yeni bir sınıf mı yoksa sadece 'Prekerleşmek' durumu mu olduğu tartışmaları uzunca bir süredir benim de gündemimde. Standing bu kitabında Prekarya'nın eğitim, örgütlenme ve adil yargı gibi çoğu sosyal haklara sahip olamadığını söyleyerek bu talepleri elde edebilmek adına 21 Maddelik bir bildirge ile mücadeleye çağırıyor ve soruyor. Buna güç verecek öznellik nerede?
December 6, 2024
Okay. Interesting analysis of the modern labour conditions of the working class and the unique features of its exploitation. It won’t be fixed with UBI though- idealistic solutions that will never happen. Mass movements in the global south get massacred for demanding 30 cent per day wage increases- it’s a fantasy to think we’ll ever achieve UBI willingly especially through non-violently acquired wealth redistribution of the wealthy.
June 13, 2019
pretty straightforward doo-dad. Worth your time if you think you're interested. I wouldn't recommend it to people who already have a decent understanding though. It would only be useful for some catchphrases and well organized arguments. Otherwise, you'll be a bored baby.
May 18, 2024
„Karta prekariatu” Guya Standinga to przenikliwa analiza współczesnej klasy pracowniczej, która zmaga się z brakiem stabilności zatrudnienia i niepewnością finansową. Standing pokazuje, jak neoliberalny system gospodarczy tworzy warunki niepewności, dotykające miliony ludzi na całym świecie.
Standing analizuje brak stabilności pracy, dostępu do świadczeń socjalnych i reprezentacji interesów pracowników. Podkreśla, że prekariat jest wynikiem celowego utrzymywania pracowników w stanie niepewności przez korporacje.
Książka wzywa do solidarności i organizowania się, wskazując, że jedynie wspólna walka może przynieść realne zmiany. „Karta prekariatu” to obowiązkowa lektura dla tych, którzy chcą zrozumieć mechanizmy współczesnego rynku pracy i szukać dróg wyjścia z niepewności i wyzysku.
Standing analizuje brak stabilności pracy, dostępu do świadczeń socjalnych i reprezentacji interesów pracowników. Podkreśla, że prekariat jest wynikiem celowego utrzymywania pracowników w stanie niepewności przez korporacje.
Książka wzywa do solidarności i organizowania się, wskazując, że jedynie wspólna walka może przynieść realne zmiany. „Karta prekariatu” to obowiązkowa lektura dla tych, którzy chcą zrozumieć mechanizmy współczesnego rynku pracy i szukać dróg wyjścia z niepewności i wyzysku.
September 22, 2014
Interesting and fairly accurate assessment of the issues facing us today. However, it's a bit thin on suggestions on how to resolve them.
April 28, 2015
review to follow
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews