Pitts, F. H., & Dinerstein, A. C. (2017). Postcapitalism, Basic Incomeand the End of Work: A Critique and Alternative. (Bath Papers inInternational Development and Wellbeing; Vol. 2017, No. 55).University of Bath. http://www.bath.ac.uk/cds/publications/bdp55.pdf

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication record in Explore Bristol ResearchPDF-document

This is the final archived version of the working paper. It first appeared online via University of Bath. Please referto any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

University of Bristol - Explore Bristol ResearchGeneral rights

This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only thepublished version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available:http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/user-guides/explore-bristol-research/ebr-terms/

BathPapersinInternationalDevelopmentandWellbeing

No:55/2017

Postcapitalism,BasicIncomeandtheEndofWork:ACritiqueandAlternative

FrederickHarryPittsSchoolofEconomics,Finance&Management,Universityof

Bristol

AnaC.DinersteinDepartment of Social & Policy Sciences, University of Bath

2

©FrederickHarryPittsandAnaC.Dinerstein,2017Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,stored inaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeanswithoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofthepublisher,norbeissuedtothepublicorcirculatedinanyformotherthanthatinwhichitispublished.Publishedby:TheCentreforDevelopmentStudiesUniversityofBathCalvertonDownBath,BA27AY,UKhttp://www.bath.ac.uk/cds

ISSN2040-••3151

SeriesEditor:SusanJohnson

TheCentreforDevelopmentStudiesattheUniversityofBathisaninterdisciplinarycollaborativeresearchcentrecriticallyengagingwithinternationaldevelopmentpolicyandpractice.

3

UNIVERSITYOFBATHCENTREFORDEVELOPMENT

STUDIESBATHPAPERSININTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENTAND

WELLBEINGNO.55–November2017

Postcapitalism,BasicIncomeandtheEndofWork:ACritiqueandAlternative

FrederickHarryPittsandAnaC.Dinerstein

Abstract:This paper critiques popular academic understandings of development towards a post-capitalist,post-worksocietybasedaroundtheautomationofproductionandtheprovisionofabasicincometothosedisplacedbyitseffects.Byfocusingonworkanditsescapeasthecentralissueatstakeinthetransition to a postcapitalist society, these accounts miss how, at one end, capitalist work ispreconditioned by a historically-specific set of antagonistic social relations of constrained socialreproduction,and,attheother,bythespecificsocial formsassumedbytheresultsofthatwork incommodityexchangeand the constituted formof thenation-state.Retainingmoney, commoditiesand the rule of value under the auspices of a national state,postcapitalist and post-work vistasrepresentabstract‘badutopias’thatbreakinsufficientlywiththepresent,andinsomewaysmakeitworse, replacing a wage over which workers can lawfully struggle with a state-administeredmonetary payment that creates a direct relationship of power between citizen and state. This ishighlightedin the potential adoption of basic income as part of authoritarian nationalist policyplatformsincludingthatofNerendraModiinIndia.Suggestingthatstrugglesoverthecontradictoryformsassumedbysocial reproduction incapitalist societyare themselves labour strugglesandnotexternaltothem,weposea‘concreteutopian’alternativethatcreatesthecapacitytoreshapetherelationship between individuals, society and the rule of money, value and the state rather thanreinforce it. To illustrate this we examine the Unemployed Workers Organisations instituted inArgentina.Thisposesonepotentialmeansofdevolvingmonetaryandnon-monetaryresourcesandpowerratherthancentralisingtheminthehandsofanall-powerful‘postcapitalist’statethatwouldcarryall thescarsofthesociety itsetsouttosurpass.Sucha 'concreteutopia'wouldcreatespacefor,andnotliquidateorfalselyresolve,classstrugglein,againstandbeyondcapitalistdevelopment.

4

1 IntroductionToday,thepost-worksocietyhasbecomeahottopicofdebate.Thepost-workprospectushastakenhold in the unlikeliest of quarters such as Labour Party policy seminars and theWorld EconomicForum in Davos (see Yamamori 2016) in ahistorical context of the crisis of therelationshipbetweenemploymentand broadersocial reproduction. In this paper, following on from previousworkcontestingthetopic(Dinerstein,Pitts&Taylor2016;Pitts&Dinerstein2017;Pitts2016,2017a,2017b; Pitts, Lombardozzi and Warner 2017a, 2017b), we expose and critique the nascent'post-work'politicalimaginaryanditsclaimthatapostcapitalistsocietyrisesfromtheruinsofworkaidedby automation and the basic income. ‘Postcapitalism’, in the work of, say, Paul Mason (2015),indicates a transitional period out of the present and into the future. But this,we argue,will notcome through the suite of options for escapingwork alone- principally, automation and the basicincome.Thisisbecauseworkassuchisnotthecentralsocialrelationshipthatdefinescapitalism,andis thereforenot thekey thing todoawaywith.Work, in theseapproaches, is reifiedas somethingapartfromthesocialrelationsofsubsistenceandsocialreproductioninwhichit is imbricated.Thisthenallowstheproposalofabasicincome,whichreliesonmoneyasaneutralunitofexchangeandaccount rather than something that itself carries these antagonistic relations of production andconsumption.Toredressthis,wefocushereonhowworkitself isundergirdedatoneendinasetofantagonisticsocial relations of separation from and dispossession of the means of production and thereproductionoflabour-power,and,attheotherend,intheformitsresultsassumeasvalue-bearingcommoditiesexchangedinthemarketbymeansofmoney.Wethuscombinetworadicallyrevisionistschools of contemporaryMarxism. First is the social reproduction approach. Zechner and Hansen(2015) define social reproduction as ‘a broad term for the domain where lives are sustained andreproduced.’ Thissuggests that capitalism is characterised asmuch bywhat supports a society ofworkthanworkitself.We complement this social reproduction understanding of the social relations that characterizecapitalist society with Marxian value-form theory in order to comprehend the 'social forms' thatrendercapitalismanhistoricallyspecificsocialformation(seePitts2017a).Thissuggestscapitalism'sspecificitypertainsnottoworkbuttotheformstakenby itsresults:abstract labour,value,money.Combined,theseapproachessuggestthattheescapefrom‘work’isnoescaperoutefromcapitalism.Theattainmentofbothisnotnearlysoeasyasthosewhoproposeitwouldhaveusbelieve.Thatwemustworkpresupposesrelationsofdistributionthatrelatelesstolabourthanlifeitself:itiscapitalistwork.Ourpointisthattherelationsofsocialreproductiondonotfadeawaywiththediminutionof'paid work' and the supplement of a UBI. Rather what we understand by 'work' and itscommodificationandmonetarisationneedstobere-evaluated.We suggest that the postcapitalist prospectus fails on three fronts. The first is that the post-workliteratureisproductivistinsofarasitsees‘work’asthecentralrelationofcapitalistsocietyandnotasthe antagonistic relations of property, ownership and subsistence that logically and historicallyprecedeasocietyinwhichmostpeoplearecompelledtoselltheirlabourtolive,northespecifickindofresultsassumedbytheproductsofthatlabourinthemarket.Insodoingitremainslockedwithinacapitalistunderstandingofwhatisproductiveandwhatisnot,despiteprofessionsotherwise.Thesecond is that the vista of automated worklessness supported by a basic income rests on acontinuationofthemoneywageinallbutnameandthepresenceofastrongstatethatbecomesthewage-payerofbothfirstand lastresort,withattendantconsequencesonthecapacityofpeopleorworkerstoresistandcontesttheconditionsorpaytowhichtheyaresubject.Wewillusethecurrentuptakeofthebasicincomeamongauthoritarianpopulistsasanexampleofwherethismighttravelpolitically,withspecificreferencetothepotentialadoptionofthemeasurebytheModigovernmentinIndia.Thethird,associatedwiththesecond,isthatnowhereinthepopularimaginaryofpost-workorpost-capitalist societydoesclass struggles feature,when it isonlybymeansof this thatapost-capitalist society can be accessed at all. We suggest the politics of social reproduction as analternative prospectus for radical changewithin and beyond capitalist society that overcomes the

5

one-sided focuson theescape fromworkas theharbingerofpostcapitalismandengageswith thepresentstrugglesforalternativeformsofsocialreproduction.Wetakeonespecificexampleofthis-theUnemployedWorkersOrganisationsestablishedinpost-crisisArgentina-asamodelforhowtherelationship with work, subsistence and money can be reconstituted in such a way as to workthrough the contradictions of labour,money, state and social reproductionwithoutwishing themaway.We conclude by suggesting that the potential solution to the three impasses identified in theliteratureonpost-workandpost-capitalistsocietyistoworkwithincontradictionsandexpandthem.Most notably this relates to class struggle recoded not only as struggles within workplaces, butwithoutinthesphereofsocialreproduction.Anunderstandingofsocialreproductionasthecentralterrainonwhichcapitalismestablishesitselfshiftsourfocustohowclassactorsresistwithinit.Thisalternativeprospectushasamajorcontributiontomaketoongoingattemptstofashioncriticalandradical responses to the crisis of work and the wage. From this perspective, technology andautomationcannotbereifiedasneutralforcestheunfoldingofwhichwilldeliverusaworklessworldsupportedbytheinterventionofthestateasthenewwagepayer.Rather,evenonthetermsofthepostcapitalist prospectus itself, class struggles would be necessary to accomplish the kind ofeconomy-wideautomationonwhichtheirvistasofthefuturehinge.Butinthatliterature,post-worksociety is seen as the accomplishment of a kind of ‘end of history’ that closes contradictions andliquidates struggles for better alternative and non-capitalist forms of social reproduction. For theabsenceofthisfactor,theirutopiaisanabstractone.Bycenteringstruggleandsocialreproduction,thepossibilityawaitsthatconcreteutopiascanbedelineatedsituatedwithinpracticeandpolicy.Thepostcapitalistprospectushasstimulatedarenewalofboldleftprogrammesforgoverningthefuture,expressed in the recentelectoralpitchesof socialists in theUKandFrance.Weend, therefore,byconsidering the kind of politics that could translate our alternative perspective into such a policyplatformtoday.2 Thepost-workprospectusThere is little new in thepost-workprospectus (PWP). Currentdebatesmirror those that followedthe last deep capitalist crisis in the 1970s. The origins of the PWP rest ina few formerly obscurepages fromMarx’sGrundrisse– the 'Fragment onMachines'(1973, pp. 704-706; see Pitts 2017b).Early PWP advocates Antonio Negri (1991) and André Gorz (1989) were central in itsdissemination.What is new is the enthusiasmwithwhich it has beenmet in the political sphere.Today, its scenario of postcapitalist worklessness findsitselfpopularised via newadherents.Bestsellers like Paul Mason’s (2015)Postcapitalism and Srnicek and Williams’s(2015),InventingtheFutureriffonitstheme.Poppingupinthepagesofbroadsheetnewspapers,itsideasnowinformpublicdebate(Harris2016,Jones2016).ThenewPWPemergedviaapost-crisisdiscourseoncapitalistdevelopmentandgrowth.Itassaysthestrategicopportunitiesopenedupbythecurrentphaseofcapitalistrestructuring.Itseespotentialswithin the presentfor the revitalization of progressive left politics. The empirical and theoreticalcontributions to thePWPare richandvaried,but it ispossible to isolate several sharedemphasesand central propositions. First, the development of information technology is ‘accelerating’. Alliedwithcrisistendenciesinthecurrentphaseofcapitalaccumulation,thisterminatesinapost-capitalistfuture. Second,dynamics of automation andnew cooperative commonspotentiate apost-worksociety of abundance and leisure. Third,progressive left politicsmust surpasslimited, reactive andparochial ‘folk politics’, reconfiguring itself around a populist-hegemonic post-work agendademandingreducedworkinghours,fullautomationandauniversalbasic income(UBI)(SrnicekandWilliams2015).Acrudetechnologicaldeterminismunderpinstheseaccountsofautomationandinformationalization(seeSpencer2016;Dyer-Witheford2015). Information technologyappears theharbingerof anewsocial structure. Informationalized, dematerialized new technologies are cast asautonomousprocesses with sociological effects(Castells, 1996; Lash & Urry, 1994; Giddens, 2002). As Doogansuggests (2009: 55) these technological developments cannot be understoodwithout reference to

6

broadermaterialdynamics.Thesecentreontheneoliberalrestructuringof labourmarketsandthelabour process. In this context, how is it possible to build a post-work utopiaon the back ofthetechnologicalrevolutionunderpinningautomation-letaloneapost-capitalistone?Tothisquestion,thePWPproffersananswerasunsatisfactoryasanyotherlegofitsappeals:thebasicincome.Inthefollowing,wewilltakeapartthiscomplexofideasbasedonthreeareasthatsuggestpost-capitalismdoesnotattendthePWP:theproductivismofthePWP,thecontinuingroleofthestateandmoneyas forms of capitalist social relations in proposals for a basic income, and the absence of classstruggle(s).3 Post-workproductivismThepost-workprospectusprofessesanti-productivism.Asabovementioned, itproposes that state-led automation will simultaneously increase productivity and facilitate the freeing of labour fromproduction, and create the fiscal resources to support the transition via UBI. Yet, despite thisprofessed anti-productivism, the assault on the society ofwork actually suffers from its reverse, adenied productivism that, like traditional Marxists through time, sees work at the centre ofeverything.AcriticalMarxism(seePitts2017a),ontheotherhand,recognizesthat,whereproductiveactivityhastakenplaceinallsocialformationsthroughtime,whatrenderscapitalismdistinctarethespecificsocialrelationsthatsupportit,andthesocialformsitsresultsassume.Inthissectionwewillsuggestthatonlybyaddressingthistotalitycanalternativeformsofsocialreproductionbefoundin,against,despite,andbeyondcapital.Where Marx wrote of the ‘misfortune’ of being a ‘productive worker’ (1976, p. 644), thecontemporarycriticalimaginaryofaworldwithoutworkfocusesononlyonepartofthisformulation,seeking an escape from the status of ‘worker’ without a strategy for addressing the criteria ofproductivenesstowhichtheworker’sstatusassuchissubject.Workisopentoquestion,butattheexpenseofquestioningthewidercircumstancesthatmakeitwhatitisincapitalistsociety:theruleofvaluewherebyproductiveactivity isstructuredbycertainconcretesocialrelationsandproducescertain abstract social forms in commodities exchanged by means of money. Neo-Ricardianinterpretationsofvalue theoryas relating toembodied labourdonotexplain thesubordinationofhumanpracticetothepowerofmoney.FollowingClarke,

thedistinctivenessofMarx’s theory laynot somuch in the ideaof labouras thesourceofvalue and surplus value as in the idea of money as the most abstract form of capitalistproperty and so as the supreme social power through which social reproduction issubordinatedtothepowerofcapital.(Clarke1988,p.13-14)

Withthelaterunderstandingofvalue,notonlythose‘working’and‘producing’butcapitalistsocietyitself is subsumed under themoney-form. Short of such a reckoning, thismeans that, evenwhilelaunching a radical attack on that productive activity itself, many approaches to the post-workquestion implicitly carry over elements of what makes it productive or not from what we havealready:theassumptionthatthereexistnon-bullshit jobsagainstwhatDavidGraeber(2013) labels‘bullshit’ones, that there isabetterorworsewaytospendourtime,or that, in thebasic income,thereshouldbeamonetaryrewardmetedoutforworkbeyondmeasure(HardtandNegri2001,p.403).ApproximatingwhatKathiWeeks (2011,p.230)calls ‘productivistmandates’, thesegeneratevarious resonancesbetween theauspiciously radicalpost-workperspectiveandanumberofotherstabilisingelementswithinthepresentsystem,reactionaryideasatitsedge,orrevolutionaryshort-circuits of the past: most notably Silicon Valley’s self-optimising productivity fetish and thetechnologicalsingularitysoughtbywealthyscionslikePeterThiel,butalso,atamoresubterraneanlevel,populistcoalitionsoftheproductiveseekingtheliquidationoftheunproductive.This paper explores how the critique of work constructs new standards of productiveness inconformitywith those towhichwe are subject already. The post-work standard-bearers of a newMarxism set up their view of an imminent post-work world based on a division between theproductive and unproductive that suggests anything but the radical alternative to capitalism theyseemtothinkitdoes.

7

Despite different politics, our present-day post-work dreamers desire much the same flat-whitefuture as the so-called ‘productivity ninjas’ that spring from the Silicon Valley subculture of pop-optimismandpersonaloptimisation.Thepost-workdreamerspresupposeaworldof technologicalsingularityasthebasisforourimminentlivesofincreasedleisure.Equallyasdrunkonthepromiseofhightechnologyarethosewebpartisanswhopositivelyrevelinhardwork,skeweredsoeffectivelyintheworkofMelissaGregg:hypedontech,numbedbymindfulnessandeagertofindtheoptimumpath topeakperformance (Gregg2015a,2015b,2016).Superficially, theSiliconValleyparagonsofself-helpproductivitymantrascouldnotbemoredifferentthantheanti-productivistprophetsofanautomated post-work society supported by the basic income. Where the former claim to find abetterwaytoputourlifetoworkforprofit,thelatterproposetheescapefromworkaltogethersoastoembracelifeinandforitself.Buttheybothdosothroughafocusonthemoreefficientuseofourtime:oneforwork,andoneforlife.Andinsodoing,theyrestonthesameidea:thatsomethingsareamore productive use of our time than others. In both, this results in a rejection ofwork that ismessy and menial. When the latter is not ignored completely, both Silicon Valley productivityfetishists and post-work dreamers assume its delegation to others, automation by robots orliquidation altogether. And the consequences could be far removed from the capitalist andpostcapitalistutopiasonoffer.Both mistakenly see labour and direct productive effort as the characteristic, crucial element ofcapitalism. The difference is that one does so positively, and the other negatively. The post-workdreamersseetheescapefromworkastheescapefromcapitalism.SiliconValleyself-helpgurusseehardworkasthesecretofcapitalism.Butbothignoretheextenttowhichcapitalismisdefinednotinthe specific productive activity that takesplacewithin it, but, at oneend, the social relations thatmakeasocietyinwhichthereisnowaytoliveexceptforthesellingoflabourpowerpossibleinthefirst place, and, at the other end, the specific social forms assumed by the results of productiveactivity incapitalistsociety-which istosay,commodities,exchangedformoneyinthemarket.Thepost-workpostcapitalistperspectivemissesthatthereisawholelotelsetoundoinordertoescapecapitalism than justworkalone.Thisperhapsexplains theabsenceofanyconsiderationofhow totranscendthemoneyform,notasameansofexchangebutasaformofpowerthatgovernssociety.Theseutopianvisionsinsteadleanheavilyontheprovisionofamonetaryuniversalbasicincometothenewlyliberatedmasses.Andthemindfulproductivityfetishistsmissthat,nomatterhowwellyouplanyourtime,theproductivityyouseekisultimatelyarbitratedelsewhere,wheretheactionreallyhappens: in society as awhole, in themarket. Until something sells, your ‘productivity’ is neitherherenorthere,theriskrunthatyourtimewasspentinvain.This belief that productivework is everything leads both perspectives to valorise certain types ofactivityandseekanescapefromothers.Byseeingproductiveworkasthecentreofeverything,theworkconnectedwithsocialreproductionthatmakesproductivelabourpossibleinthefirstplace-areelided,eitherassomethingtovalueorsomethingtoescape.Wedonotmeanonlydomesticwork,but the work that sustains life in capitalist society. There are two weaknesses in the post-workworldviewwherebytherestructuringofpaidworkisprioritisedattheexpenseoftheformsofworkthatmakeitpossibleinthefirstplace,andtheexistenceofabstractlabourasthesubstanceofvalueis ignored.Theaimistospendourtimemoreproductively,andthere isusuallyaconnotationthatthismoreproductiveuseofourtimewillbespentwriting,painting,andsoonandsoforth,andnotlooking after one another, and sharing the distribution of cleaning, cooking, and caring moreequitably. Indeed, the tedious nature of many aspects of this work is cast by the postcapitalistutopians as something to be reduced to a minimum and outsourced to our new robot slaves.Meanwhile, the self-optimising professionals of Silicon Valley also see such socially reproductiveactivitiesassomethingtobedispatchedwithasswiftlyandefficientlyaspossible,asapotentialblockto theworkwhereall themagichappens-productive labour, theonlyother thingsweneedspendtime on being mindfulness and meditation. What this usually implies is the presence of others-commodifiedoruncommodifiedprovidersofsociallyreproductivelabour-tostepinandtakeuptheslackfortheproductivelifestylesofthoseamongthesiliconsaved.Forinstance,atGoogle,unlimitedfree lunch is dished up by hands the owners of which remain unseen, the rest of their bodiesobscuredbythehotcafeteriametal.Bothpost-workparagonsandproductivityninjassimilarlyelide

8

theclassed,genderedandracializeddimensionsof thedistributionof thework thatsupports theirchosenscenarios. Inbothcases,thequestionremains:whodoestheworkthatmakespossiblethemore productive use of our own time? With no solution offered in the post-work scenarios todefinitivelyrestructuretheantagonisticsocialrelationsofproductionthatsupportthisunequalsharein theburdenof labour, theprovisionofabasic income isseenasameansofsmoothingover thestickyandspikycontradictionsofcapitalistsociety,struggleoverconstitutiveinequalitiesofpropertyandownershipoutsourcedtothesimpleimplementationofstateprogrammesofinvestment.Inforgettingthatonwhichsweetdreamsofaworklessworld(or,rather,aworldofwagelesswork)rest,bothpost-workandproductivity-fetishistperspectivesonamoreproductive future tella self-referentialstory.AsAngelaMcRobbienotes,bothmainstreamandradicalpostoperaistaccountsofthecreativeeconomytendtotalkaboutaspecifickindofmaleexperienceinseekingtheliberationfromuseless labour (2016,pp.94-5,100,157).This functionsa little like theattractionofstudyingtheGramscian theoryofhegemony foraspirantcadresofgovernmentsandNGOs,whichKeesvanderPijl ascribes to itsempoweringnarrativeofa revolutionary ‘warofposition’ foughtbyhumblebourgeoisclerks(vanderPijl2005).Indeed,Gramscihangsheavyoverschemesforhowtoachieveapost-work society-mostnotably in SrnicekandWilliams’s interesting suggestionofaMontPelerinSociety of the left (Srnicek and Williams 2015). All this exposes the weakness of contemporaryappropriationsofGramscibynon-MarxistGramscians, inso faras it rests in turnonananalysisofneoliberalismasaneliteprojectreshapingcommonsense,ratherthanan imperativedrivenbytheabstract economic compulsions of capitalist reproduction. Empoweringly, the conditions of theformercanbereplicated,thelatternot.Inshort,thereisataletoldinthetheoryinwhichitsadvocatescanplaceandpresentthemselvesasa means to pave their way through the world. There is little wonder the uptake for post-workthinkinghasbeensostrongamongjournalistsandacademics,aswellascreativesandartists,sincefor these groups the alternatives require little adaptation to a working lifestyle in which theirproductivecontributioncanbeenactedinallplacesatalltimes.Itistheirliberationfromtheformsandrelationsofproductiveactivitythatisposedhere,evenwhilsttheyimplythepersistenceofeachinfavourofthenarrowerescapefromworkalone.Meanwhile,theycancontinuetheirworkwithoutfacingup to,atoneend, thesocially reproductivecircumstances thatmake itpossible,and,at theother,thespecificcommodifiedformsassumedbytheresultsofit.Similarly,theSiliconValleystart-upupstartsstandforamoreefficientwayofexcellingatsomethingtheylove,whereastooptimiseone’s timetobebetteratwork is formostameansof self-exploitation ina job theyhate,but forwhomalackofotherskillsoroptionsmakesittheonlypossiblelinktothemeansofliving.Inthisitonly retreads what traditional Marxism has tended to do, celebrating the productive power of avanguard class of workers as the means by which a new world is unlocked. The fetishization ofproductivenessintheself-helpbooksfindsitsreflectiveflipsideinthedisavowedproductivismofthenew anti-work literature, in which, falling over themselves to attest to their anti-productivistcredentials,proponentsgiveareadingofcapitalismthatemphasisesonlyworkanditsescapeasthecentral task confronting the class, under the apparently paradoxical auspices of being moreproductiveandbetterwithit.Far fromnegating the roleofwork incapitalist societyaltogether,what thisdoes is reproduce thecapitalist division between productive and unproductive labour along different lines. These linesbecomedangerouspointsof separationwhen tied to revolutionaryprogrammes foranewkindofsociety forged in a context of human and economic crisis their proponents seek to posit theresolution of. Dreams of a basic income-funded future rhetorically idealise certain creative,communicativeordigitalactivitiesonlybyuncriticallyseeingthemasliberatedinthepresent,ratherthan subject to the same ‘bullshit’ as any other job. Indeed, like right and left totalitarianismsthroughtime,itencouragesthepursuitofidealisedactivitiescharacterisedasmoreproductivethanothers-attheriskofliquidatingthoseactivitiesconsideredunproductiveandwiththemtheiractors.Aiming at the mediation of class antagonisms at a higher level rather than their abolition, itcelebrates the productive workers engaged in these activities in much the same way thattotalitarianisms of the right and left have modelled their visions of society around an idealisedproductiveworkeratoncesourcedfromcapitalismbuterectedintoanabsurdcaricature.And,with

9

devastatingeffect,thisreduceswhatis‘unproductive’toruin-usuallyalongthelinesoftheparticulareconomic or social category performing it. This echoes in the present-day disdain for financeindustries that issues from personalising critiques of capitalism on both the right and left.Unproductive work becomes synonymous with unearned wealth. The new populisms posethemselvesasalliancesoftheproductive.Drainingtheswamp,theyproposetoprosecute,persecuteandeventuallypurgetheunproductive.Asleftistcriticsofcapitalismlineupbehindtheprospectusofapowerfulstateprovidingabasicincometoanationalcitizenryinsearchoftheoptimumuseoftimeagainsttheunproductive,theinefficientandthe‘bullshit’,whatcouldpossiblygowrong?Whatmakes the search for the productive so dangerous, in both its Silicon Valley and post-workappearances,isthatvalueincapitalistsocietyrelatesnottotheconcreteexpenditureoflabourintheworkplaceatall.Rather,itrelatestotheexchangeofitsresultasacommoditybymeansofmoney(seePitts2017a).Thismeansthatthesearchforamoreproductiveuseoftimeisinherentlyunstableand insatiable, searching for something false somewhere it cannot be found. It can locateproductivity only in revolt against the rule of value, an abstraction that cannot be fought throughworkaloneandonlythroughtheabolitionofcommoditysocietyitself.Unabletoofferanalternative,it seeks to satiate its search for the concrete and the productive through a succession of newabstractions that,whenenacted,only serve toextend the samesocialprocessof valorisationwithwhich theyconceptually struggle.Aswewillgoon todiscuss, theseabstractionsentailanabstractutopia,andnotaconcrete,practicalone.Moreover,wecontend,acertaindebilitatingunderstandingofthenationstateandourrelationshiptoitisimpliedinmanyoftheseabstractlyworklessutopiasfundedbythebasicincome.

5 Problematisingthebasicincome:wage,moneyandthestateAccordingtoadvocatesofthePWPtheproblemwithcapitalismisthatitmakesusdependentupon‘work’.This takesworkas thebasisofcapitalismasanexploitativesystem.The implementationofthe UBI appearsprogressivefor it frees us from this exploitation. Itmakes everyone semi-autonomous from work. But this is a very narrow understanding of capitalism that sees itsynonymous with labour itself and not, as we have stated above, with value, commodities and acertainhistorically-specific set of antagonistic social relationsbasednot around labourbut labour-power. With the waning of work, we are told, technological unemployment renders the wageinsufficienttosecureworkers'subsistence.Theirlabour-power-thepurepotentialtolabour-mustbereproduced through other means. This is also, as we have noted, the reproduction of lifeundercapitalism.ThisiswheretheUBIstepsin.Itprovidesastate-sponsoredsupplementtoensurethereproductionoflabourwithincapitalism.Such visions are based on a fundamental misconception of the nature and determination of the‘wage’.Thebasicincome,Masoncontends,payspeople‘justtoexist’.Butthisis‘onlyatransitionalmeasure for the first stage of the postcapitalist project’. The 'socialisation' of the wage through‘collectively provided services’,or its abolition,follow (2015, pp. 284-6). Payment to exist, coupledwithautomation, allowsnetworked, autonomous experimentation in place of labour.As such,Masonsuggeststhatthebasicincomewouldbeatransitionalsteptowardstheabolitionofthewage.But even thismay retainthe separation of people from independent, non-commodifiedmeans ofliving(see Bonefeld 2014). The social conditions undergirding the wage would continue, with orwithout thewage itself. The social conditions for the sale of labour-powerwould remain,with orwithoutabuyer.Thisisbecausethewageisnotarewardforexpendedlabourbutapaymenttokeepworkers in the conditionthat they can andmust labour (Critisticuffs 2015). In thisway, thewagesubordinateshumanlifetothecommandofmoney.Weacquirewhatweneedonlyascommoditiesbearingaprice.Money isvalue-in-motion. Inspiteof its insubstantiality, itdominatesandexpandsacrossthewholesocialandexistentialcondition(LilleyandPapadopoulos2014).WiththeUBI,thestate directly superintends the rule of money. So while UBI may apparently free us from(un)employment,itmakesusmoredependentonmoneyand,moredangerouslythestate.Theseareformsofcapitalist social relations,notneutralentities tobeappropriatedatwill.Theirpersistencemeans no ‘postcapitalism’ need attend UBI’spost-work idyll. As Clarke highlights ‘the apparentneutrality[ofthestate]isnotanessentialfeatureofthestate,itisratherafeatureofthefetishized

10

forminwhichtheruleofcapitaliseffectedthroughthestate.Itisthereforesomethingthatshouldemergeattheendoftheanalysisandnotsomethingthatshouldbeinscribedintheanalysisfromthebeginning’(Clarke1991,p.185).This brings us to the problematic treatment of the state amongst advocates of the PWP. Anautomatedeconomyrequiresacapitaliststatesupportingandmaintainingourcapacitytoconsume.AndUBI increases thedependenceofpeopleon the state for their subsistence.We think that thePWPhasnotreflectedonthenatureofthecapitaliststate.Itmisconceivesitasanarenaforpowerstruggles over resources. This managerial view of the state focuses on income distribution. Thedistribution of money by the state will only mean a different form ofwealth sharing for socialreproduction.ThePWPmissesthecharacterofthestate,likemoney,asaformassumedbycapitalistsocial relations. Itpurports tofreepeople from the burden of work sponsored by a betterdistributionoffinancialresourcesasameansbywhich‘post’-capitalismsocietycanbeaccessed.Butit continues humanity’s subordination to the social forms of capitalist domination, namelymoneyandthestate.Theproblemwithequatingtheendof‘work’withtheendofcapitalismbecomesparticularlyevidentif we consider the state politics inherent in current proposals for the UBI. Consensus is formingaroundUBIfromallsidesofthepoliticalspectrum.Itsimplementationseemsincreasinglynecessaryto combatageneralised ‘crisisof social reproduction’ sparkedbyendemicunemploymentand theretreatofthewelfarestate(Caffentzis2002;Bakker&Gill2003;Leonard&Fraser2016;Gill2016).But the continuity it guarantees against the underlying constraints on living and working todayappealsasmuch to thosewhowish tosee thesystempreservedasdoes it to thoseseeking todoawaywithit.Itisincreasinglyrecognizedevenbythefree-marketrightthataUBImaybenecessarytocontainthecontradictionsofasocietywhereworkisperformedbyrobotsandworkersaresurplustorequirements.FromtheFinancialTimestothefoothillsofDavos itrecommends itselfasasafetycord for capitalism (Wolf, 2014, Yamamori 2016).Emboldened by the double-edged feasibilitygrantedbymainstreamliberalopinion,UBIisnowthebigdemandofacontemporaryleftinspiredbypostcapitalistvistas(Mason2015,SrnicekandWilliams2015)movinginanincreasinglypopulistandstatistdirection. In theUK,LabourPartyShadowChancellor JohnMcDonnell recentlyannouncedaUBIworkinggroup,headedupbyleadingadvocateGuyStanding(2017,Cowburn2017).TheFrenchSocialistcandidateforpresidentelection,BenoitHamon,ranonaplatforminwhichUBIdidmuchoftheheavy lifting (Bell2017).Butwhereelsemight itspurchasetravelpolitically?Astheproposal ismobilisedaroundpolitically,whatkindofstate(ornationstate)doesthebasicincomeimply?Against leftist aims,onepossibledestinationof theUBI is in thepolicyagendasof the constituentpartiesof thecontemporary ‘nationalist international’ofauthoritarianpopulists (Ash2016,Mishra2016). Despite analyses emphasising their appeal to localised grievances, transnationalcommonalities include ascendant strongman leadership, pro-Putinism, isolationism, anti-cosmopolitanism and persecution of ethnic and religious groups. Common intellectual networks,international alliances, funding streams, news sites and hacking networks constitute a materialinfrastructure. And the UBI is increasingly on their agenda. It has already been adopted by thepolitically unpindownable Five StarMovement in Italy ‘as a substitute for all existing social safetyprovisions linked to work and unemployment’ whereby ‘[b]eneficiaries must declare immediateavailabilityforwork,attendtrainingcourses,participateinjobinterviews,andperformactivitiesthatare useful to the community in theirmunicipality of residence’ (Caruso 2017, p. 592). And, in themostinterestingandtellingturnyet,itwasannouncedrecentlythatthegovernmentofauthoritariannationalist NerendraModi in India is considering its implementation (The Economist 2017a). Thisdemonstratesitspotentialappealtotheinternationalnexusofauthoritariannationalpopulism.The Indian UBI proposals follow hot on the heels of the so-called ‘note ban’, or ‘demonetization’whereby,onNovember8th, thedayofDonaldTrump’selection, the Indiangovernment imposedasudden and enforced devaluation of all papermoney (Maiorano 2016). The auspicious aim of themeasurewastorootoutcorruptioninthecash-driveninformalsector.SomeseetheUBIasameansbywhich theaccumulatedscrapcashgeneratedbydemonetizationcanbe recirculated.Apossibletooltocombatpoverty,theproposalsforUBIinIndiadifferinscopefromthosein,say,Franceorthe

11

UK. But there are still implications for howwe understand the UBI in an age of authoritarianismascendant.Followingapilot run in Indiaby theGuy Standing (Davalaetal 2015), the ideawas floated in theannual economic survey accompanying the government’s budget declaration. Although small- nomore than the average month’s wage over the whole year- it would make a substantial impact,reducing absolute poverty some 20 per cent. It would be partly funded by a bonfire of existingwelfare payments. The cuts to welfare would specifically target stratified systems for subsidisedwater,foodandagriculturalresources.AstheEconomistnotes(2017b),thisrunstheriskof ‘tellinganilliteratefarmerthatafood-in-kindschemehehasusedfordecadesisbeingscrappedtofinanceaprogrammethatwillputhimonparwith[…]atycoonwholivesina27storeyhouse’.Classishereelidedfortheabstract‘people’.Adopting the ‘authoritarian playbook’ from which the nationalist International draws, Modi set astrongman,strong-armprototypeforPresidentTrump(Robinson2016).Indeed,commentatorsdrawparallelsbetweenModi’s ‘noteban’andTrump’s ‘Muslimban’ (Chakraborty2017)TheformerwasanexclusionarymeasurenotsomuchtargetedatbutspecificallyimpactinguponDalits,Muslimsandother ethnic groups subject to high levels of poverty and joblessness, who tend to subsist morecloselyfromthecash-ledeconomy.Indeed,theUBImeasureitselfcontainsapotentialoverlapwithModi’sundeclaredstateofemergency,pro-HindumigrantpolicyandvowstodisenfranchiseMuslims(Robinson2016,Sharma2016,Das2016).For thesumstoaddup,only75percentof thecountrycouldreceivethepayment.Paymentviacompulsorybiometricidentificationcardswouldstrengthenthegovernment’shandindecidingwhodoesandwhodoesnotgetpaid.Thispotentialexclusionaryeffectthusteamswiththecapacityofthegovernmenttowieldthewandofwhogetswhat.Andthis,perhapsnotcoincidentally,relatestoanoutcomeoftherecent‘noteban’.Demonetizationimpactedforcefully upon poor farmers who relied on savings to subsist, by rendering those savings bothuselessandworthless.Inthisway,itreplacedanindividualisedcurrencywithadigitalstate-directedmoney ripe for adaptation in theUBI, in theprocess encouraging the spendingof saved cashas ameanstoraiseeffectivedemand.Lessapolicythanapoliticalweapon,itmobilises,ontheguaranteeofimminentriches,themassesasanationalcitizenrywhilstallowingtheeventualexclusionofthosewhofallfoulofbirthbetweenother borders or beliefs. Its dark power consisting in the totalitarian relationship it establishesbetweenthestateandthecapacitytosubsist,what’snottolikeforthenationalistInternational?TheUBI,paidonbasisofmembershipofanationally-definedpeople,istheperfectpolicytocoheresuchapeopleinaclasssocietywhereonecannotinpracticeexist,andexcludesthosewhocannotorwillnot conform. UBI in One Countryhas the potential to be notrevolutionary, as the left imagine,butdeeplyreactionary.Withthebestofintentionsinaworldgonebad,leftishconceptualisationsoftheUBI sometimes give succour to its possible implementation in the arsenal of authoritarianism,comingling with the right in a wider turn to populism, nationalism and souverainisme, or‘sovereignism’(Coates2016,Henri-Levy2016).According toLaclau (1979;2002),populism isaboutarticulatingdifferenceon linesofequivalence,on the basis of a grievance shared by many. On an irretrievably national basis at a time of thebreakdown of liberal international institutions, UBI cannot but construct this equivalence and thegrievancesonwhichitfeedsalongnational lines.HardtandNegri(2001,p.403)for instance,writethataUBIcouldbepaidonthebasisof‘citizenship’,throughone’sbeinga‘memberofsociety’.Thisis asmuch out of necessity as choice, unless theUBI is organisedworldwide, or Europe-wide, forinstance.Yettheideacannotbeextricatedfromitscontextinconcretenationalconditions.Inatimeof national retrenchment, the UBI cannot but imply an exclusionary approach, its ‘universality’recoded as the universality of a national people. Such arguments for a historically prematureuniversalitymask,asBonefeldsuggests

theglobalcharacterofexploitativerelations…Thespecificcharacterofthestate'sintegrationrequiresananalysisofthepeculiaritiesofaparticularstateanditsnationaleconomysoastounderstand the interrelation of the international movements of capital and the national

12

formulationofpolicies.(Bonefeld1993:61)TheUBI sums this up: contrary to its universality, anexclusionarymeasurewhich grants citizens aguaranteedincomebutnotnecessarilythosewhoarenotsubjectsofagivenstate.Inthisway,theUBIresonateswithapoliticsreconstitutingitselfaroundopenandclosedasmuchasleftandright,asthe latter undergo a convergence (The Economist 2016). Rolled outworldwide, this protectionismcouldwellaidandabetthedevelopmentoftheUBI.Theprospectofthewidespreadreturnofcapitalcontrolswouldhelp furnish the resources to enact nationalUBIs (Warner 2016).Where it doesn’ttakehold,suchasintheEU,so-called‘helicoptermoney’couldprovidethehardcashwithwhichtodoit(McFarland2016).Thispolyvalencemakesitverymuchup-for-grabspolitically.

6 Liquidatingclassstrugglebydecree?Thesesubtleresonancesbetweenthepast,thepresentandthefuturesuggestthatUBIisonepartofa wider politics that the left must do its best to resist. The left advocates UBI out of the bestintentions,but remainswithinwhatBonefeld (2016) calls a ‘spellbound’modeof thinking that,bynotunderstanding capitalism,doesnotunderstandhow it is confronted.Mostpainfully, ithas thepotentialtofulfiltheprogrammeofrightpopulismsandtotalitarianismsthroughtimebyliquidatingclassconflictinproduction.AsBritishLabourMPJonCruddasnotes,inthiswaytheUBIpotentiatesthe self-destructionof the left andof the labourmovement (BBC2016, see alsoCruddas&Kibasi2016,Sodha2017).CruciallytheUBIretainsthecurrentruleofproperty,ofpower,whereas,asSoniaSodhapointsout, ‘if KarlMarxwerealive, he’dbe shoutingabout theownershipof themeansofproduction’(BBC2016).UnderUBI,nothingchangeshands.But,wearetold,theresultsaresharedamongthosetowhomitisdue.Take,forinstance,thelinkbetweendemonetizationandUBIintheIndiancase.ThecombinedeffectofdemonetizationandUBIwould,ontheonehand,replaceanindividualizedmoneysupplythroughwhich people access the things they need by means of the wage with one granted at stateconvenience. On the other, for those not currently in receipt of a wage, it creates a permanentdependenceontheumbilicalcordofthestate.Thislastwouldbenobadthingwereitnotforwhocontrols it. And it limits the bases for class mobilisation. Although there are specificities to thesituation in India thatchangesomeof thesecalculations,appliedmorewidely theUBIbreaksherewithsomevitalpreconditionsofclassstruggle.Under the real illusion of legal equivalence circumscribed by the impersonal power of the state,buyerandselleroflabourpowermeetinthemarketasequalparties.Theclassstrugglethenmovesthrough, and is contained within, the practices and processes assumed by these legal realappearances.Classstruggleisastruggleovertheformoftheselegalaswellaseconomicandpoliticalformsthatmediateclassstruggle,whichare,inturn,modified,orevendestroyed,asinthecaseofModiinIndiaorTrumpintheUSA.Wagebargainingseesstrugglesensueforahigherpriceoflabourpower,engaged inbyassociationsof its sellers.This isdrivenby thecollectivestruggle to liveandenjoy life.Oncetheprovisionofmoneycomesnotfromthewagebutfromthebeneficenceofthestate,thiswebofrelationsbywhichworkerswinabetterbalancebetweentheirsubsistenceandthework they do collapses. From the impersonal power of liberal legal structures, we have thepersonalisedpowerofstatefiatdeterminingwhogetswhat.Theweightydemocratic,administrativeandbrute-forceheft that this arrangement implieswill no longerbe concealedbehind contractualniceties,butwagedopenlyanddirectly.Classconflictdestroyed,onlystatepowerremains.This is an extreme example that usefully serves to highlight how, liquidating class struggles for anationally-constitutedcitizenry,abstractutopiasreliantontheUBImightalsotreattheclassstruggleasaclosedcasewhilst largelyretainingthecurrentruleofpropertyownership, including,crucially,that of themeans of production, forwhich no postcapitalist or post-work vista gives a convincingvision for redress. The basic income, as a key principle of the proposed post-work society, breakshere with some vital preconditions of worker organisation. In his analysis of the Keynesian state,Hollowayarguesthatthelatterconstitutedaspecific‘modeofdomination’(Holloway1996,p.8)fortheKeynesianstatecontainedthepoweroflabourviathe‘monetization’ofclassconflict:‘Intheface

13

of rigidity and revolt,moneywas the great lubricant.Wage-bargaining became the focus of bothmanagerialchangeandworkerdiscontent’(Holloway1996,p.23).ThecrisisofKeynesianismwas,inthis sense, ‘a crisis of a formof containment of labour’ (Holloway, 1996, p. 27). Thebasic incomecouldbecome,then,anotherformofdominationofthepoweroflabour,onlythatthistime,ratherthanrelyingonclassconflict,aimsatobliteratingit.Inthisway,itharkensbacktothoseformsofpopulismandauthoritarianismthat,wheretheyhaverearedtheiruglyheads,havesoughttodestroytheworking-classmovementwherecapitalismcouldnotbypromisingtheresolutionofclassstruggleonahigherplaneofprimordialidentitypriortothepoliticalworking throughandoutof contradictions.Onlyhere, for thecontemporarypostcapitalistadvocates of the UBI, the abstraction that quashes class struggle is only implicitly the nationalpeople,andexplicitly freemoneyand freetimeunder thewatchfuleyeofabenevolentstate.Thenationalaspectis implicitbecause, inaworldwherebordersarestrengtheningandnotweakening,and strongmen rule supreme, what other basis will there be for a UBI than the nation and its‘people’?TheUBImayyetconcealcapitalistsociety’scontradictionsinthedarkcellarofautarky.Thisway,withdrawingfromtheworldandexcludingtheoutsider,utopiamaybethelastthingUBIleadsto.It isourcontentionthatthesetendenciesarealwaystherewithinconceptualisationsoftheUBI,rightandleft.Thebasic incomeeffectivelyabolishesanymeansbywhichworkers can struggle forabetterdeal,liquidating class struggle and purporting to resolve its contradictions at the imaginary level of anationstatepayingfreemoneytoanationally-definedpeople.Insodoing,thevistaofanabolitionofwork afforded by the basic income serves up the fruits of struggle prematurely,without struggleshaving takenplace. It temporarilydefers thecontradictionsof classantagonismwithout resolutionthroughtheantagonismitself.This is ironicevenonthetermsofthepostcapitalistargumentitself,insofarasclassstrugglewouldbenecessarytodriveupwagestotheextentthatemployerswouldbemotivated toworth low-paidworkers inbad jobswithmachines in the firstplace.Yetnoneof thepopularimaginariesofanautomatedfutureentertainthisnotion,outsourcingcapitalistdevelopmentto technology as a neutral force as opposed to one imbricated and resulting from wider socialrelations.By endowing the relationship between work and technology with a set of eschatological andPromethean associations, the postwork hypothesis steals work from its antagonistic context incapitalist social relations thatbothpre-existandcontinue tounderpin thecompulsion to labour inthefirstplace,throughmoney.Thisisnowheremoretransparentintheappealtoabenevolentstateas the effective payer of thewagequa basic income. This purports to change the social relationsunderwhichwegetpaidforthebetter,butrunstheriskofdoingsofortheworstpreciselybecausetheclass strugglecontainedandconcealed in the formal legal relationshipbetween thebuyerandseller of labour is elided. In a world where we must work to eat, we live as labour-power, thereproduction ofwhich is also the reproduction of ourselves as humans. Thewage is the umbilicalcordwithlifeitself.Theabolitionofbullshitjobsproposestodoawaywiththewageandreplaceitwithabasicincome,paidforanewkindofworkfreedfromthelabourrelationship.Thismaynotbeallbad.Butinproposingtodoawaywithbullshitjobswithabasicincome,thepostworkprospectusimpliesthepersistenceofthekindoftasksforwhichpeoplearepresentlypaidbutunderadifferentsetofworkrelationships.The basic income, inmany ways, is just another wage- but one paid by the state.What about if(post)workerswantbetter pay for thenon-bullshitwork they share in common?Addressing thesedemandstoastatenowinvesteddirectlyinthereproductionofyourcapacitytolabour-inhowever‘liberated’ a way- is much harder than fighting for their recognition in the workplace.Whilst theworkplace comes with its own everyday forms of domination, individual employers have nomonopolyon themeansofviolencesuchas thestatewields in last resort-andsometimes first. Inthis world, placing the power of deciding whowill be paid and for what in the hands of a state,however benevolent, jumps the gun, pre-empting the overhaul of the wider social relations andsocial forms of capitalist society. These forms cannot be escaped through labour alone. Theobjectifications to which humans are subject have a habit of coming back to haunt us, and our

14

attemptatfreeingourselvesfromthemcreatenewobjectificationsthatcontrolusanew.Thisisnotto say that thepostcapitalist school should stop trying toenvisionanalternative.But toooften itstransitionalmeasuresmerelyrepeattheworstofthisworldratherthanthebestofthenext.Thenewbossmaybejustthesameastheold.7 Socialreproductionstrugglesas‘labour’strugglesWhatwewouldliketoproposeinsteadisthepoliticsofsocialreproductionasanalternativetotheprevailingpost-work,post-capitalistconsensus.Asnoted,scholarshavesuggestedthatcapitalismisundergoinga severe and protracted crisis of social reproduction. Employment increasingly fails tosupport subsistence. But PWP advocates confuse this situation with an unfolding end of work. Asocialreproductionstandpointredressesthis.ThePWP,byseeinginthecrisisofsocialreproductiontheend of work, misses the connection betweenproduction and what precedes it, logically andhistorically.AsNancyFraser(2014,p.57)writes,whileMarx‘lookedbehindthesphereofexchange,intothe‘hiddenabode’ofproduction,inordertodiscovercapitalism’ssecrets’,itisalsonecessaryto‘seekproduction’s conditionsofpossibilitybehind that sphere’.Namely:whydowehave towork,andwhatkeepsusworking?ThePWPwantstodoawaywithwork,withoutposingthequestionwhyitexistsintheformitdoes.

In asking this, the social reproduction perspectivetakes inspiration fromMarxist-feminist inquiriesinto the ‘conditions of possibility of labour-power'andthe ‘manner in which labour power isbiologically,sociallyandgenerationallyreproduced’(FergusonandMcNally,2015).Marxwritesthat‘the worker belongs to capital before he has sold himself to the capitalist’ (1976, p. 723). Thisrelationship begins ‘notwith the offer ofwork, butwith the imperative to earn a living’ (Denning2010, p. 80). As Dalla Costa (1995) contends, this relates to an ongoing process of ‘primitiveaccumulation’.Workersaredispossessedcontinuallyofthecommonmeansofmeetingtheirneeds.Newenclosuresspringupdaily.Thisisreproducedconstantlytokeepworkersinasituationwherebytheymustselltheir labour-powertolive.Thesocialreproductionperspectiveseestheseconditionsaskeytocapitalistsociety.AsFergusonandMcNally(2015)contend,theverydefinitionofthelatteris workers' separation'from the means of their subsistence (or social reproduction)’. Workplaceexploitation, then, as Bhattacharya (2015) asserts, is not the singularmoment of domination.Theviolent denial of the human need to subsisthere precedes the compulsion to labour. There is noescaping work without addressing how to meet the former. The PWP offers no alternativeinfrastructuretodosoindependentofcommodification.TheUBI,apossiblesolution,onlyreinforcesthe rule ofmoneywith which the wage is intimately connected, simply substituting the buyer oflabourpowerwiththestate.

What the social reproductionapproach suggests,by foregrounding the constitutive social relationsthatundergirdworktobeginwith,isthatstrugglesforsocialreproductionarealsoinstancesofclassstruggle. Struggles addressed to state solutions and state recognition are themselves struggles forthemeans to liveandsubsist.AsAnnaCurciopointsout inan interviewwithKathiWeeks (WeeksandCurcio2015),thesamestruggles,‘broughttogetherbythesamepossibilityofsurvival’,arealsostrugglesforthe‘survivalandtheautonomousreproductionofthehumanbeingandastruggleforthesurvivalandthereproductionofcapital’.Infightstoprotectthewelfaresystem,forinstance,thisdualidentityisclear.Oursurvivalhingesonthesurvival-andtheprosperity-ofcapital,fornow.Thiscreatestensions,struggles,conflicts.Theycentreonconsumption,thecommons,commodification:outsideproduction,inthesphereofrealisation.Thesurvivalofsocietyhingesontheabilityofpeopleto subsist and reproduce the means of both living and labouring. Thus, it is a political choice toidentifywhichkindofsocietywewanttoemergefromthiscrisis.And,atpresent,allthevisionsforhow this pans out are implicated within the eventual implementation of the basic income, andliquidated therein. In the next section, we suggest an alternative that liquidates neither socialreproductionasclassstruggle,norclassstruggleassocialreproduction.

15

8 Fromconcretetoabstractutopia:IllustratinganalternativeLessconcernedwiththepopularthanthepopulistcategoryofthe‘people’,theleftcontinuestoplotabstract utopian schemes around monetary payments based on the membership of this elusivefigure, with class nowhere to be seen. But, if anything, the space to create concrete utopias isrequired (Dinerstein 2014; 2016). A necessary first step is to address class, property and socialreproductionincold,hard,criticalanddispassionateways-whilststillallowingstruggletothrive.Thisisaboutharnessingthelegalandpoliticalweaponryathandtoexpandspaceforalternativesthroughand not in spite of the present state of things. It is imperative to locatewhere this potential lies.Whereconcreteutopiasarecalledforinpractice,todaytheanti-austerityleftandcriticsofcapitalismembraceabstractutopiasliketheautomatedworklessnessofadvancedroboticsandtheUBI.In this sectionwewill look at the exampleof theArgentinianUnemployedWorkersOrganisations(UWOs)asanillustrationofhoweachoftheimpassesoutlinedabovecanbeovercomeandconcreteratherthanabstractutopiasenvisioned. Inthisexample,theconcernwiththeproductivesphere isovercome with reference to new forms of social reproduction, the direct dependence on thebenevolence of the state is mediated through new collective institutions, and the concept ofcontinuing class struggle and societal contradiction is kept intact. The possibilities for an excessbeyondthepresentis,asweshallsee,notexhaustedasinabstractutopia,butbecomesastructuringprincipleofconcreteutopiasthatremedymanyoftheflawsofthePWP.Insteadoftalkingabouttheriskofco-optation,weprefertoexplorehowtheseconcreteutopiasaretranslatedbythestate,thelaw and into policy. This means that while they are at risk of being integrated into the modusoperandi and logics imposed by the powers that they confront, and therefore suffer de-radicalisation,thistranslationisaprocessofstrugglethatallowsroomforradicalchangeandexcess.

UWOsareoneofanumberofLatinAmericansocialmovementsthatseekautonomyanddignityinescaping social exclusion and unemployment. Thework of one of the present authors (Dinerstein2010, 2013, 2014, 2017) has been central in charting the story of how the UWOs came to pass.UnemploymentinArgentinahadrisenfrom6%in1991to18%in1995.‘Organisationallyincoherent’roadblock protests called for ‘job creation, publicworkers, essential services [and] participation inthemanagementof employmentprogrammes’ (Dinerstein2010, p. 358). These ‘Piqueteros’ hadastrategyof ‘leveraging state resources througha combinationof protest and social projects in thecommunity and not only challenged the common view of the unemployed as excluded andredundant but also influenced the institutional framework within which social demands could bemade’.TheydidsothroughthecreationofnewUWOswhich,throughresistanceandstruggle,weresuccessful in drawing down state benefits that would have been paid individually and paid themcollectively for community projects that were decided collectively to address the needs of socialreproduction.

One in particular is worthy of specific scrutiny: the Union Trabajadores Desocupados (UTD), orUnemployedWorkersUnion.TheUTDwas formed following theprivatizationof the local stateoilcompany-only5600of51000workersremained. In themunicipalityofGeneralMosconi,34.6%ofthepopulationwasunemployedby2001.TheUTDwasledbyex-oilworkers,whoassessedprojectsforsupportaccordingto ‘localneed’, ‘dignity’and ‘genuinework’ in ‘solidarity’.Projectsaddressed‘long-term sustainability’ in ‘housing, education and environmental protection’, and also everydayissues like ‘recycling, refurbishing public buildings and houses, community farms, soupkitchen…retirement homes, health care visits to the ill and disabled, production of regional crafts,carpentry…maintainingand repairinghospitalemergency roomsandschools.’ In thisway, theUTDbecamethe‘quasi-citycouncil’ofGeneralMosconi.

Theydidthisthroughstatefunding,butnotinadirectwayreliantonthebenevolenceofthestate.Rather resourceswerecaptured inanactiveandopenrelationshipofconflictandnegotiation thatcreatedspace for things toexceedthecapacityof thestate tocontrolandgovernhowthemoneywasspent.TheUWOsfoughtfor‘there-appropriationofsocialprogrammesforcollectivepurposes’,and they did this by switching between two modes of activity: mobilisation, which used theroadblocks to demand resources; and policy, which moved state resources through the

16

neighbourhoodtoimplementtheresourcesinsocialprojects.Itisonlybymeansofandthroughtheseeming contradiction between these two registers of mobilisation and social policy that stateresources can be leveraged at all. The UWOs worked within contradiction rather than seeking toescapeinafinal,closedsettlementthatestablishedanabstractutopia.Theirconcreteutopia,insofarasitwasachievedatall,wassubjecttoandthrivedfromthesecontradictions,‘usingresistanceasaconduit for community development and community development as a conduit for resistance’(Dinerstein 2010, p. 361). The post-work prospectuses based on the basic income, by seeking theabsolution from work by means of the state, foreclose contradiction in a final abstract utopia ofautomated worklessness with no room for further struggle within the interstices of thosecontradictions.

Rather than awelfare policy granted fromupon high towhich individual recipientsmust addressthemselves, theUWOs institutedwhatDinerstein (2010) describes as ‘welfare policy frombelow’.Benefitsof£30perheadpermonthwerepaidevery6monthsfromthestate,andthendistributedbytheUTDamongthe‘unemployedworkers’whowere‘willingtoundertakecommunitywork’.By2005 the UTD managed as many programmes as the municipality and more than the provincialgovernments-housingco-ops,garmentfactory,trainingcentres,auniversity.Italsoservedasajobagency and trade union, using its leverage to get unemployedworkers jobs, backedup by ‘accessblockades’outsideand,onceenoughUTDsemployed, ‘linestoppages’within (Dinerstein2010,pp.360-1).

As suchwelfarewas locked intoa convincing reconstitutionof a communityofworkandworkers.UTD,forexample,identified‘workasatruehumanattributethatmustbeusedfortheproductionofusefulgoodsandservices’(Dinerstein2010,p.361).Thekeyissueherewas‘dignity’.Theirsearchfordignified work permitted neither Prometheanism nor neurosis around what is conceptualisedcorrectlyasaneverydaypointofmeaningandantagonism.Byworkingwithinthecontradictionsthatconfronttheeverydaypracticeofworkandtheabstractdeterminationoflabourincapitalistsociety,the UWOs ‘challenged the individualistic logic of workfare and state policy and reconceptualised‘work’incapitalistsociety’(Dinerstein2017)inafarmoreconcreteandpracticalwaythanthePWPseems capable of, whilst also embedding this in an attempt to overhaul the socially reproductivesocial relations of subsistence that compel us to work in the first place. For Zechner and Hansen(2015), ‘struggles around social reproduction allow for arenegotiation of the around what isconsidered work, or what is valued as such’. We can see in the piqueteros’ struggle over socialreproductionasimilarrenegotiation,situatingtheseparationfromthemeansofsubsistenceandthecompulsion to sell one’s labour power in historical context. Theoretically, this destablises it.Practically,itallowstheconcretesearchforcontemporaryon-the-groundalternatives.

TheUWOsaresuggestiveofthepossibilitiesof ‘translating’radicalpoliticalandsocialpractice intoinstitutionalisedsolutionsstruckwiththestate.Translationisdefinedas‘theprocesses,mechanismsanddynamicsthroughwhichthestateincorporatesthecooperationandsolidarityethosoftheSSEpracticedbysocialmovementsthroughpolicy’(Dinerstein2017).However,withthistheriskisrunofthe‘depoliticisation’ofthesemovementsbythenewlegalstructuresputinplacetosuperintendthestate programmes on which their claims are made. UWOs had to become NGOs, registered andassessedbythestate,orelse,asdidtheUTD,retainautonomybyusingtheregistrationofafriendlyNGO,soasto‘accessfunding[whilst]continuingtodesignitsownstrategiesandimplementitsowncommunity ventures’ (Dinerstein 2010, p. 360). But it was working within this antagonistic andcontradictory relationshipwith the state that allowed their social gains to be achieved. The basicincome,ontheotherhand,concentratespowerabsolutelyinthehandsofthestateasabenefactorrather than a boss,with themore subservient and compliant relationship this implies. TheUWOspermit acceptance that the embeddedness of social actors ‘in, against and beyond’ the state willalways be contested, and it is this from which we proceed as a starting point, rather thanapproaching it as a limit, so that ‘institutionalisation’ is not simply that- but rather ‘contestedinstitutionalisation’allthewayupanddown.Socialmovements,inposingalternatives,‘navigatethetensionbetweenresistanceandintegration’(Dinerstein2010,pp.357-8).Anditisthistensionthatisproductive:

17

embeddingautonomyappearstobeachievablebyrecreatingsocialrelationsatcommunitylevel,andbyengagingwiththeinstitutionsofsociety…Autonomouscollectiveactionbycivilsociety actors remains alive through the steady, continuing and often painful strugglesunderpinned by the tension between affirmation of autonomy and recuperation ofautonomybythestate.(Dinerstein2010,p.364)

ThePiqueteroswieldedpower bymanaging andusing this tension, rather than avoiding it. This isbecausetherewasanexcessfacilitatedthatsuchtotalisingsolutionsasthebasic incomeand‘fullyautomatedluxurycommunism’,byimplyingthepresenceofastrongandall-powerfulstate,donot.Dinerstein(2017)identifiesfourdimensionsor‘zones’inthemovement’sstruggle,notstaggeredbutcontained dialectically within one another. These are: the creative zone, the conflict zone, thetranslationzoneandthebeyondzone.Nomatterwhatthecompromisesoftranslation,whatmattersis what is left in the last of these, wherein lies an untranslatable excess- ‘the impossibility tocompletelytranslatemovement-ledSSEpracticeintopolicy’.

The UWOs demonstrate a collective alternative against the individualised structure of the UBI.Dinerstein concludes that ‘[t]he collective use of individual social/unemployment benefits forcommunity development purposes, financed by state programmes, but devised, implemented andsupervisedbyNGOs,asintheUWO’scase,mightnotbeunimaginableintheUKenvironment’(2010,pp.364-5).Asanalternativeusingasocialreproductionapproachtorecodetheissuesthepostworkprospectuscurrentlyconfrontsinthepublicconsciousness,thispathmaywellbeonepolicymakersshould consider taking that circumvents wishful thinking and moves within contradictions andstrugglesratherthanshuttingthemdowninthesearchforabstract,andnotconcrete,utopias,whichreaffirmtheviolenceofabstractionandthepowerofmoneyoverhumanity.

9 Conclusion:Criss-crossedbycontradictionCoveringeverythingthatreproducesbothlifeandcapitalistsociety,socialreproductionisinevitablycrisscrossed by contradiction. Contradictorily, the reproduction of each- life and capital- is thereproductionoftheother.Capitalistsocietydependsuponthecommodificationofthelabour-powerwe sell to live.As Ferguson and McNally note (2015), the reproduction of labour-power issimultaneously ‘ourquest to satisfyhumanneeds, tolive’.What thisdualness indicates is that ‘thevery acts where theworking class strives to attend to its own needs can be the ground for classstruggle’ (Bhattacharya 2015). Social reproduction is a sphere of conflict as long as labour powerimpliesthistwinintent.Thecapitalistdesiresitsreproductiontoexploit,theworkeritsreproductiontoeat.Wagedemands, strikes forpayorbetterhours, exercise regimes,diets. In seekingabetterstandardoflife,allexpressthisantagonisticsettlement'scontradictorycontours.

Thestruggleshighlighthowsocial reproduction iscrisscrossedbycontradictions,wherein liesroomfor resistance and rupture, and for the creation of ‘alternative forms of social reproduction’, orconcrete utopias (Dinerstein 2016). Any analysis ofwork and economic lifemust tune in to thesecontradictionsandtheirpossibilities.Whenwereproducelabour-power,wealsoreproducelifeitself.Thewagepaysforlabour-power,anditisthroughthewagethatwelive.Thereisnootherway.Butin living,webuildstrengthtofindalternatives.AsFergusonandMcNallynote, ‘labour-powerhasacontradictoryrelationshipwithcapital'.Thisisbecauseitsreproduction-thatalsooflife-is‘essentialto,butalsoadragon,accumulation’.Itsneedsarenotalways those capitalpermits- and theyaresatisfiedonlyinafalse,unfulfilledway.

In rearguard actions to protect the welfare system, for instance, the contradictory unity of thesituationisclear.Capitalismisundergoingageneralisedcrisisofsocialreproductionthathasreachedtheglobalnorthsince2008,butwhich isfarfromnewintheglobalSouth.Cutbacks inthewelfarestate couple with the delinking of subsistence from the wage, endemic unemployment and thephysical and social exhaustion of the commodification of labour-power. Inunemployment andextreme precarity, satisfying human needsbecomes an overwhelmingtask. The crisisworsensthisstateofprecarity.Thewelfarestatewithdraws.Thiscompelsustoanswerquestionsabouthowwesatisfytheseneeds.AsDinerstein(2002,p.14)putsit,the‘contradictionbetweentheneedsoftheworkersandtheneedsofcapitalthatlivesatthecoreoftheproblemofsocialreproductioncannot

18

bemore vivid. This is not a political, economic or social issue but it is about the reproduction ofhuman‘life’’.

Infightingforthewelfaresystemwebothensureourreproductionashumanswellasworkers,andin turn the reproductionof capitalist society. The two sides, in their contradictory unity, are thesame.Oursurvivalhingesonthesurvivalofcapital,fornow,fromwhichweseekstrengthtofightonforanalternativetoit.Thesocialreproductionstandpointsuggeststhatcapitalandstatesustainus.But it endows the situationwitha thoroughly contradictory status. There is a total absenceofanyDurkheimian functionalism.The post work thesis, on the other hand, posits precisely such afunctionalvisionofsociety.Namely, iteliminatesconflictandcontradictionandseeksto ‘solvetheproblemofwork’.

Tointerveneinthepoliticsofwork,onemustfirstinterveneinthepoliticsofthesocialrelationsthatsupport it.Strugglesover social reproductionare ‘labour’ struggles.Concurrently,‘labour’ strugglesaremainly strugglesover social reproduction.Westruggle to live,not towork.This takesplacein,against,despiteandbeyondcapital.Thisstruggle isone,asWalterBenjaminputs it, for ‘crudeandmaterialthingswithoutwhichnorefinedandspiritualthingscouldexist’(1999).Instrugglingtoavailourselvesofwhatweneedtoeat,todrink,tosharetogether,wegesturefromthisworldtoothers.Thatis,weproducesurplusofpossibilitiesthat,aswehaveshown,postworkadvocatesarepresentlymissing.

AcknowledgementWearegratefultoToniaNovitz,ProfessorofLabourLawattheUniversityofBristolLawSchoolforherinsightfulcommentsandsuggestionsonanearlierversionofthispaper.

19

ReferencesBakker,I.andGill,S.,2003,Power,productionandsocialreproduction.Basingstoke:Palgrave.BBC,2016,MoneyforNothing(Analysis).BroadcastonBBCRadio4Sunday17thJuly2016.Availablefrom:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jyrdqBell, D.A., 2017, France: The Death of the Elephants. Dissent. 2 Feb. Available from:https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/france-elections-fillon-hamon-melenchon-le-pen-unpredictableBenjamin,W.,1999,ThesesonthePhilosophyofHistory.InW.Benjamin, Illuminations:EssaysandRelections.London:Pimlico.Bhattacharya,T.,2015,HowNotToSkipClass:SocialReproductionofLaborandtheGlobalWorkingClass. Viewpoint Magazine 5. Available from: https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/how-not-to-skip-class-social-reproduction-of-labor-and-the-global-working-class/Bonefeld,W.,1993,TheGlobalMoneyPowerofCapitalandtheCrisisofKeynesianism:AResearchNote,CommonSense,13,54-62.Bonefeld,W.,2014,CriticalTheoryandtheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy:OnSubversionandNegativeReason.London:Bloomsbury.Bonefeld,W., 2016, Bringing critical theory back in at a time ofmisery: three beginningswithoutconclusion,Capital&Class,40(2),233-244.Caffentzis, G., 2002, On the Notion of a Crisis of Social Reproduction: A Theoretical Review. TheCommoner,5,1-22.Caruso, L., 2017, Digital Capitalism and the End of Politics: The Case of the Italian Five StarMovement.Politics&Society,45(4),585-609.Castells,M.,1996,TheRiseoftheNetworkSocietyOxford:Blackwell.Chakraborty, A., 2017, Trump’s #MuslimBan and Modi’s #NoteBan are fascist policies hiding asnational interest. DailyO. 30 Jan. Available from: http://www.dailyo.in/politics/donald-trump-america-president-narendra-modi-muslim-ban-islamophobia-demonetisation-fascism-note-ban/story/1/15386.htmlClarke,S.,1988,Keynesianism,Monetarismandthecrisisofthestate.EdwardElgar:Aldershot.Clarke, S., 1991, State, Class Struggle and the Reproduction of Capital. In S. Clarke (ed.)The StateDebate.Basingstoke:Macmillan.Coates,A.,2016DoesGallowayBlazeTrail for ‘Left’Shift toAlignwithNationalistRight?TendanceCoatesy. 17 Apr. Available from: <https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/does-galloway-blaze-trail-for-left-shift-to-align-with-nationalist-right/>Cowburn, A., 2017, Labour sets up ‘working group’ to investigate universal basic income, JohnMcDonnell reveals. The Independent, 5 Feb. Available from:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-sets-up-working-group-to-investigate-radical-idea-of-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-reveals-a7563566.htmlCritisticuffs, 2015,What is wrongwith freemoney?Gruppen gegen Kapital und Nation.Available

20

from:http://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-moneyCruddas, J and Kibasi, T., 2016 A universal basic mistake. Prospect. July 2016. Available from:http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/a-universal-basic-mistake.Dalla Costa,M., 1995, Capitalism and Reproduction. InW. Bonefeld, R. Gunn, J. Holloway and K.Pshychopedis(Eds.)OpenMarxismVol.III,PlutoPress:London.Das, K.N., 2016, Indian PM NarendraModi's party vows to stripMuslim immigrants of vote. TheSydney Morning Herald. 12 Mar. Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/world/indian-pm-narendra-modis-party-vows-to-strip-muslim-immigrants-of-vote-20160311-gnghsp.htmlDavala,S.,Jhabyala,R.,Mehta,S.K.,andStanding,G.,2015,BasicIncome:ATransformativePolicyforIndia.London:Bloomsbury.Denning,M.,2010,WagelessLife,NewLeftReview.Nov/Dec:79-97.Dinerstein,A.C.,2002,RegainingMateriality:UnemploymentandtheInvisibleSubjectivityofLabour.In A.C. Dinerstein and M. Neary (Eds.) The Labour Debate: An Investigation into the Theory andRealityofCapitalistWork.London:Routledge.Dinerstein,A.C.,2010,AutonomyinLatinAmerica:betweenresistanceandintegration.EchoesfromthePiqueterosexperience.CommunityDevelopmentJournal,45(3),356-66.Dinerstein, A.C., 2013, From Corporatist to Autonomous: UnemployedWorkers Organisations andtheremakingof laboursubjectivity inArgentina’. InJ.Howell(Ed),Non-GovernmentalPublicActionandSocialJustice,Vol.2.London:Palgrave.Dinerstein,A.C., 2014,TheDreamofDignifiedWork:OnGoodandBadUtopias.DevelopmentandChange,45(5),1037-1058.Dinerstein, A.C., 2016, Denaturalising Society: Concrete Utopia and the Prefigurative Critique ofPolitical Economy. InA.C.Dinerstein (Ed.),Social Sciences forAnOther Politics:WomenTheorisingWithoutParachutes.London:PalgraveMacmillan.Dinerstein,A.C.,2017,Co-constructionorprefiguration?Rethinkingthe“translation”ofSSEpracticesintopolicy.InP.NorthandM.ScottCato(Eds.)Towardsjustandsustainableeconomies:ThesocialandsolidarityeconomyNorthandSouth.Bristol:PolicyPress.DinersteinA.C.,Taylor,G.,Pitts,F.H.,2016,Apost-workeconomyof robotsandmachines isabadutopia for the left.TheConversation. 23May.Available from: https://theconversation.com/a-post-work-economy-of-robots-and-machines-is-a-bad-utopia-for-the-left-59134Doogan,K.,2009,NewCapitalism:TheTransformationofWork.Cambridge:Polity.Dyer-Witheford,N.,2015,Cyber-Proletariat:GloalLabourintheDigitalVortex.London:PlutoPress.Economist, 2016, The new political divide. The Economist. 30 Jul. Available from:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thenewpoliticaldivideEconomist,2017a,Bonfireofthesubsidies:Indiadebatesthecaseforauniversalbasicincome.TheEconomist2Feb.Availablefrom:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21716027-india-should-replace-its-thicket-welfare-payments-single-payment-india-debates-caseEconomist, 2017b, Rupees for nothing: India floats the idea of a universal basic income. The

21

Economist. 4 Feb. Available from: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21716064-powerful-idea-unfeasible-now-india-floats-idea-universalFerguson, S. and McNally, D., 2015, Social Reproduction Beyond Intersectionality: An Interview.ViewpointMagazine 5.Available from:https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/social-reproduction-beyond-intersectionality-an-interview-with-sue-ferguson-and-david-mcnally/Fraser,N.,2014,BehindMarx’sHiddenAbode,NewLeftReview,86Mar-Apr,55-72.Giddens,A.,2002,RunawayWorld:HowGlobalizationisReshapingOurLives.London:ProfileBooks.Gill,S.,2016,CriticalGlobalPoliticalEconomyandtheGlobalOrganicCrisis.In,A.Cafruny,L.Talaniand G. Pozo Martin (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical International Political Economy.Basingstoke:Palgrave.Gorz,A.,1989,Critiqueofeconomicreason.London:Verso.Graeber, D., 2013, On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs. Strike! 17th Aug. Available from:http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/Gregg, M., 2015a, The Productivity Obsession. The Atlantic. 13th Nov. Available from:https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/be-more-productive/415821/Gregg,M.,2015b,GettingThingsDone:Productivity,self-managementandtheorderofthings”inK.HillisK,S.PaasonenandM.Petit(Eds.),NetworkedAffect.Cambridge,Massachusetts:MITPress.Gregg, M., 2016, The Limits of Self-Help Productivity Lit. The Atlantic. 22nd Apr. Available from:https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-limits-of-self-help-productivity-lit/479382/Hardt,M.andNegri,A.,2001,Empire.Harvard:HarvardUniversityPress.Harris,J.,2016,Shouldwescrapbenefitsandpayeveryone£100aweek?TheGuardian.Wednesday13th Apr. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-notHenri-Levy,B.,2016,ThepoliticsofDonaldTrumpandVladimirPutinwilldominatetheworldpost-Brexit. New Statesman. 4 Jul. Available from:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/politics-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-will-dominate-world-post-brexitHolloway, J., 1996, The abyss opens: The rise and fall of Keynesianism. In, W. Bonefeld and J.Holloway(eds.),GlobalCapital,NationStatesandthePoliticsofMoney.London:MacMillan.Jones,O.,2016,Weshouldbestrivingtoworkless,nottoilinguntilwedrop.TheGuardian.3rdMar.Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/03/retirement-retiring-age-77-strive-work-less-progress-challenge-bleak-prospectLaclau, E., 1979, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism. London:Verso.Laclau,E.,2002,Onpopulistreason.London:Verso.Lash,S.andUrry,J.,1994,EconomiesofSignsandSpace.London:Sage.Leonard, S. and Fraser,N., 2016, Capitalism’s Crisis of Care.DissentMagazine Fall 2016. Available

22

from:https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/nancy-fraser-interview-capitalism-crisis-of-careLilley,S.andPapadopoulos,D.,2014.MaterialReturns:CulturesofValuation,BiofinancialisationandtheAutonomyofPolitics.Sociology,48(5),972–988.Maiorano, D., 2016, India’s crackdown on cash corruption is really all about politics. TheConversation. 21st Nov. Available from: https://theconversation.com/indias-crackdown-on-cash-corruption-is-really-all-about-politics-68701Marx,K.,1973Grundrisse.London:Penguin.Marx,K.,1976,Capital.London:Penguin.Mason,P.,2015,Postcapitalism:AGuidetoOurFuture.London:AllenLane.McFarland, K., 2016, EU: MEPs call on Mario Draghi to consider helicopter money. Basic IncomeNews.22 Jun.Available from:http://basicincome.org/news/2016/06/eu-meps-call-on-mario-draghi-to-consider-helicopter-money/McRobbie,A.,2016,BeCreative:MakingaLivingintheNewCultureIndustries.Oxford:Polity.Mishra,P.,2016RiseoftheEgocrats.N+1.11Nov.Availablefrom:https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/election/rise-of-the-egocrats/Negri,A.,1991MarxbeyondMarx:LessonsontheGrundrisse,NewYork:Autonomedia.Pitts,F.H.,2016,ACrisisofMeasurability?CritiquingPost-OperaismoonLabour,ValueandtheBasicIncome.CapitalandClass,Onlinefirst,21stSept,doi:10.1177/0309816816665579.Pitts,F.H.,2017a,CritiquingCapitalismToday:NewWaystoReadMarx.NewYork:Palgrave.Pitts, F.H., 2017b, Beyond the Fragment: Postoperaismo, postcapitalism and Marx’s ‘Notes onMachines’,45yearson.Economy&Society.Inpress.Pitts, F.H. and Dinerstein, A.C., 2017, Corbynism’s conveyor belt of ideas: Postcapitalism and thepolitics of social reproduction. Capital and Class, Online first, 9th Oct,doi:10.1177/0309816817734487.Pitts, F.H., Lombardozzi, L. andWarner, N., 2017a,Beyond Basic Income:Overcoming the Crisis ofSocialDemocracy?Brussels:FoundationforEuropeanProgressiveStudies.Pitts, F.H., Lombardozzi, L. and Warner, N., (2017b) Speenhamland, automation and the basicincome:Alessonfromhistory?Renewal:AJournalofSocialDemocracy.Inpress.Robinson, N., 2016, Authoritarian Democracy: A Playbook. Dissent. 14 Nov. Available from:https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/authoritarian-democracy-playbook-modi-erdogan-trump.Sharma,B.,2016,ModiGovt.PlansToGrantIndianCitizenshipToHinduRefugeesByIndependenceDay.TheHuffington Post. 22 Jun. Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/22/modi-govt-plans-to-grant-indian-citizenship-to-hindu-refugees-b/Sodha,S.,2017, IsFinland’sbasicuniversal incomeasolutiontoautomation, fewer jobsand lowerwages? The Observer. 19 Feb. Available from:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/basic-income-finland-low-wages-fewer-jobsSpencer,D,2017,WorkinandbeyondtheSecondMachineAge:thepoliticsofproductionanddigital

23

technologies.Work,Employment&Society,31(1),142-152.Srnicek,N. andWilliams,A., 2015 Inventing theFuture:PostcapitalismandaWorldwithoutWork.London:Verso.Standing,G.,2017, ‘Universalbasic incomeisbecominganurgentnecessity’.TheGuardian.12Jan.Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/12/universal-basic-income-finland-ukVan der Pijl., K, 2005, Gramsci and LeftManagerialism.Critical Review of International Social andPoliticalPhilosophy,8(4),499-511.Weeks,K.,2011,TheProblemwithWork,Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.Weeks,K.,andCurcio,A.,2015,SocialReproduction,NeoliberalCrisis,andtheProblemwithWork.ViewpointMagazine 5,Available from:https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/social-reproduction-neoliberal-crisis-and-the-problem-with-work-a-conversation-with-kathi-weeks/Wolf, M., 2014, Enslave the robots and free the poor. Financial Times. 11 Feb. Available from:http://on.ft.com/1iM0pyNYamamori,T.,2016,ChristopherPissarides,aNobelLaureate,arguesforUBIattheWorldEconomicForum at Davos. Basic Income News. 6th Feb. Available from:http://basicincome.org/news/2016/02/international-christopher-pissarides-a-nobel-economist-argues-for-ubi-at-a-debate-in-davos/Zechner,M.andHansen,B.R.,2015BuildingPowerinaCrisisofSocialReproduction.ROARMagazineAvailablefrom:<https://roarmag.org/magazine/building-power-crisis-social-reproduction/>

24

TheCentreforDevelopmentStudies(CDS),UniversityofBathTheCentreforDevelopmentStudiesaimstocontributetocombatingglobalpovertyandinequalitythroughprimaryresearchintothepracticalrealitiesofglobalpoverty;and,criticalengagementwithdevelopment practice and policy making. In December 2011, the Bath Papers in InternationalDevelopment(BPD)workingpaperserieswasmergedwiththeWellbeinginDevelopingCountries(WeD)WorkingPaperSeries,whichhasnowbeendiscontinued.Thenewseries,BathPapers inInternationalDevelopmentandWell-BeingcontinuesthenumberingoftheBPDseries.

BathPapersinInternationalDevelopmentandWell-Being(BPIDW)BathPapersinInternationalDevelopmentandWell-BeingpublishesresearchandpolicyanalysisbyscholarsanddevelopmentpractitionersintheCDSanditswidernetwork. Submissionstotheseriesareencouraged;submissionsshouldbedirectedtotheSeriesEditor,andwillbesubjecttoablindpeerreviewprocesspriortoacceptance.

SeriesEditors:SusanJohnson

Website:http://www.bath.ac.uk/cds/publications

Email:s.z.johnson@bath.ac.uk

2017

No.54ThePotentialofDigitalCashTransferstostrengthenthelinkbetweenHumanitarianAssistanceandSocialProtection.Author(s):EmmaFord

No.53WhatCrisisProduces:DangerousBodies,EbolaHeroesandResistanceinSierraLeone.Author(s):LuisaEnria

No.52DomesticresourcemobilisationstrategiesofNationalNon-GovernmentalDevelopmentOrganisationsinGhana.Author(s):EmmanuelKumi

No.51Theintrinsicandinstrumentalvalueofmoneyandresourcemanagementforpeople’swellbeinginruralKenya.Author(s):SilviaStorchi

No.50ChieftaincyandthedistributivepoliticsofanagriculturalinputsubsidyprogrammeinaruralMalawianvillage.Author(s):DanielWroe

2016

No.49Managingrelationshipsinqualitativeimpactevaluationtoimprovedevelopmentoutcomes:QuIPchoreographyasacasestudy.Author(s):JamesCopestake,ClaireAllanb,WilmvanBekkum,MogesBelay,TeferaGoshu,PeterMvula,FionaRemnant,ErinThomas,ZenawiZerahun

No.48Neo-developmentalismandtradeunionsinBrazil.Author(s):AndréiaGalvão

No.47Progressandsetbacksintheneo-developmentalistagendaofpublicpolicyinBrazilAuthor(s):JoséMarcosN.Novellli

No.45 Qualitativeimpactevaluation:incorporatingauthenticityintotheassessmentofrigourAuthor(s):SusanJohnsonandSaltanatRasulovaNo.44 FinancialCapabilityforWellbeing:AnalternativeperspectivefromtheCapabilityApproach

25

Author(s):SilviaStorchiandSusanJohnson

2015

No.43 RelationalWellbeing:ATheoreticalandOperationalApproachAuthor(s):SarahC.WhiteNo.42 HumanitarianNGOs:DealingwithauthoritarianregimesAuthor(s):OliverWaltonNo.41 ‘Upliftment’,friendsandfinance:EverydayconceptsandpracticesofresourceexchangeUnderpinningmobilemoneyadoptioninKenyaAuthor(s):SusanJohnsonandFroukjeKrijtenburgNo.40 TowardsapluralhistoryofmicrofinanceAuthor(s):JamesCopestake,MateoCabello,RuthGoodwin-Groen,RobinGravesteijn,JulieHumberstone,SusanJohnson,MaxNino-Zarazua,MatthewTitusNo.39 Theologicalresourcesandthetransformationofunjuststructures:ThecaseofArgentineinformaleconomyworkersAuthor(s):SéverineDeneulin,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.38 ColonialityandIndigenousTerritorialRightsinthePeruvianAmazon:ACritiqueofthePriorConsultationLawAuthor(s):RogerMerinoAcuña,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.37 Micro-foundationsofproducerpowerinColombiaandthePhilippines:towardsapoliticalunderstandingofrentsAuthor(s):CharmaineG.Ramos,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath

2014

No.36 “Whitherdevelopmentstudies?”ReflectionsonitsrelationshipwithsocialpolicyAuthor(s):JamesCopestake,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.35 AssessingRuralTransformations:PilotingaQualitativeImpactProtocolinMalawiandEthiopiaAuthor(s):JamesCopestakeandFionaRemnant,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.34 “Wedon’thavethisismineandthisishis”:ManagingmoneyandthecharacterofconjugalityinKenyaAuthor(s):SusanJohnson,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.33 Cancivilsocietybefreeofthenaturalstate?ApplyingNorthtoBangladeshAuthor(s):GeofWood,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.32 Creatingmorejustcities:TherighttothecityandthecapabilityapproachcombinedAuthor(s):SéverineDeneulin,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.31 Engagingwithchildrenlivingamidstpoliticalviolence:TowardsanintegratedapproachtoprotectionAuthor(s):JasonHart,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.30 CompetingvisionsoffinancialinclusioninKenya:TheriftrevealedbymobilemoneytransferAuthor(s):SusanJohnson,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath

26

No.29 Can’tbuymehappiness:HowvoluntarysimplicitycontributestosubjectivewellbeingAuthor(s):NadinevanDijk,UnitedNationsResearchInstituteforSocialDevelopment,Switzerland

2013

No.28ChallengefundsininternationaldevelopmentAuthor(s):Anne-MarieO’Riordan,JamesCopestake,JulietteSeibold&DavidSmith,TriplelineConsultingandUniversityofBathNo.27 FromtheIdeaofJusticetotheIdeaofInjustice:MixingtheIdeal,Non-idealandDynamicConceptionsofInjusticeAuthor(s):OscarGarza,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.26 UnderstandingPolicyandProgrammingonSex-SelectioninTamilNadu:EthnographicandSociologicalReflectionsAuthor(s):ShahidPerwez,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.25 Beyondthegrumpyrichmanandthehappypeasant:SubjectiveperspectivesonwellbeingandfoodsecurityinruralIndiaAuthor(s):SarahC.White,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.24 Behindtheaidbrand:DistinguishingbetweendevelopmentfinanceandassistanceAuthor(s):JamesCopestake,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.23 Thepoliticaleconomyoffinancialinclusion:TailoringpolicytofitamidthetensionsofmarketdevelopmentAuthor(s):SusanJohnson,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath;andRichardWilliams,OxfordPolicyManagement,OxfordNo.22 ‘EverythingisPolitics’:UnderstandingthepoliticaldimensionsofNGOlegitimacyinconflict-affectedandtransitionalcontextsAuthor(s):OliverWalton,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.21 InformalityandCorruptionAuthor(s):AjitMishra,UniversityofBath;andRanjanRay,MonashUniversity,AustraliaNo.20 Thespeedofthesnail:TheZapatistas’autonomydefactoandtheMexicanStateAuthor(s):AnaC.Dinerstein,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.19 Patriarchalinvestments:Marriage,dowryandeconomicchangeinruralBangladeshAuthor(s):SarahCWhite,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath

2012

No.18 Politicaleconomyanalysis,aideffectivenessandtheartofdevelopmentmanagementAuthor(s):JamesCopestakeandRichardWilliams,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.17Justiceanddeliberationaboutthegoodlife:ThecontributionofLatinAmericanbuenvivirsocialmovementstotheideaofjusticeAuthor(s):SéverineDeneulin,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.16 Limitsofparticipatorydemocracy:SocialmovementsandthedisplacementofdisagreementinSouthAmerica;and,

27

Author(s):JuanPabloFerrero,DepartmentofSocialandPolicySciences,UniversityofBathNo.15 Humanrightstrade-offsinacontextofsystemicunfreedom:ThecaseofthesmeltertownofLaOroya,PeruAuthor(s):AreliValencia,UniversityofVictoria,CanadaNo.14Inclusivefinancialmarkets:IstransformationunderwayinKenya?Author(s):SusanJohnson,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath;andStevenArnold,DepartmentofEconomics,UniversityofBathNo.13 Beyondsubjectivewell-being:AcriticalreviewoftheStiglitzReportapproachtosubjectiveperspectivesonqualityoflifeAuthor(s):SarahC.White,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath,StanleyO.Gaines,DepartmentofPsychology,BrunelUniversity;andShreyaJha,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath

2011

No.12 TheroleofsocialresourcesinsecuringlifeandlivelihoodinruralAfghanistanAuthor(s):PaulaKantor,InternationalCentreforResearchonWomen;andAdamPain,AfghanistanResearchandEvaluationUnit

2010

No.11Côted’Ivoire’selusivequestforpeaceAuthor(s):ArnimLanger,CentreforPeaceResearchandStrategicStudies,UniversityofLeuvenNo.10 Doesmodernitystillmatter?EvaluatingtheconceptofmultiplemodernitiesanditsalternativesAuthor(s):ElsjeFourie,UniversityofTrentoNo.9 Thepoliticaleconomyofsecessionism:Inequality,identityandthestateAuthor(s):GrahamK.Brown,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.8 Hopemovements:SocialmovementsinthepursuitofdevelopmentAuthor(s):SéverineDeneulin,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath;andAnaC.Dinerstein,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.7 Theroleofinformalgroupsinfinancialmarkets:EvidencefromKenyaAuthor(s):SusanJohnson,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath,MarkkuMalkamäki,DecentralisedFinancialServicesProject,Kenya;andMaxNiño-Zarazua,IndependentConsultant,MexicoCity

2009

No.6 ‘GettothebridgeandIwillhelpyoucross’:Merit,personalconnections,andmoneyasroutestosuccessinNigerianhighereducationAuthor(s):ChrisWillott,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.5 Thepoliticsoffinancialpolicymakinginadevelopingcountry:TheFinancialInstitutionsActinThailandAuthor(s):ArissaraPainmanakul,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.4 ContestingtheboundariesofreligioninsocialmobilizationGrahamK.Brown,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath,Author(s):SéverineDeneulinandJosephDevine,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath

28

No.3 Legiblepluralism:ThepoliticsofethnicandreligiousidentificationinMalaysiaAuthor(s):GrahamK.Brown,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.2 Financialinclusion,vulnerability,andmentalmodels:Fromphysicalaccesstoeffectiveuseoffinancialservicesinalow-incomeareaofMexicoCityAuthor(s):MaxNiño-Zarazua,IndependentConsultant,MexicoCity;andJamesG.Copestake,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBathNo.1.FinancialaccessandexclusioninKenyaandUgandaAuthor(s):SusanJohnson,CentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBath;andMaxNiño-Zarazua,IndependentConsultant,MexicoCity