In David Casassas’s “Unconditional Freedom”, readers are prompted to reassess the societal understanding of work, specifically, to distinguish it from productivity. Whose labour is it, and towards what end? Throughout left-wing intellectual history, these questions have repeatedly emerged, with varying interpretations based on differing ideological schools of thought.
Marx suggested a rearrangement of the production means to allow the working class enjoy the fruits of their efforts, whilst anarchist figures such as Bakunin and Kropotkin believed Marx didn’t go far enough. They proposed a redefinition of labour as means to freedom, arguing there’s no compulsory line between work and leisure in terms of necessity, fulfillment or pleasure.
This envisages a society where everyone can explore their talents freely and equally, not merely enduring work but also actively seeking it, along with leisure activities. Ideally, work, as a defined necessity, should be more associated with maintenance and wellness rather than surplus generation for private or state entities.
This vision ties in effortlessly with the intellectual lineage of anarcho-syndicalism, which has been vocally supported by modern authors such as David Graeber, Marshall Sahlins and James C Scott. Graeber’s 2018 work, “Bullshit Jobs”, offers an especially pertinent comparison, since it also posits that fair capital distribution through universal basic income provides a more equal and fair treatment of the hidden labour inherent in daily life, such as cleaning, parenting and emotional support for close relations.
Casassas further illustrates that seeking a fair portion of our communal assets should not be viewed as begging or something to be ashamed of. He points out that the phrase “go cap in hand” came from the industrial age, when sick or absent workers would have their cap placed in a particular spot so that others leaving work could contribute a portion of their wages.
Hence, universal basic income as well as the concept of “going cap in hand”, stem from the same roots of communalism and mutual support, ensuring that everyone in society is provided for, especially in difficult times. Society, as Casassas argues, should not necessarily be more convoluted than this.