Free labour can be conceptualised through two interwoven and sometimes conflated paradigms. The first is political economy and the second is human rights (rights-based). The notion of free labour can be traced to Marx’s (1972, p. 791) discussion which relates to the freedom of the worker to sell labour power as a commodity. It is a dual notion of freedom, meaning that the worker is free to sell their labour power, unencumbered by their role in other modes of production than capitalism, but as well as that the worker is not treated as a human commodity (chattel slavery) or co-erced into work by any reason other than the need to sell labour power. In Volume II of Capital (Marx, 1977), Marx develops his circuit model which aims to show capitalism as a self-contained system independent of other modes of production. This was first questioned by Luxemburg (2003/1913), and the issue of whether capitalism can exist by itself remains unresolved. One of the grounds for challenging independence is the possible dependence on unfree labour. Cohen addressed the issue as follows:
what is ... uncertain is whether it is part of the intrinsic and necessary definition of a capitalist mode of production that it relies exclusively on free wage labourers (in the senses Marx indicated). In general, Marx does hold this view and it is one that I shall contest- advancing indeed a contrary thesis that capitalism has always survived, and
even thrived, by deploying substantial numbers of unfree or semi-free labourers (R. Cohen, 1987, p. 2; 2006, p. 14).
Miles (1987) identified six forms of unfree labour (slavery, indenture, labour tenancy, convict labour, contract labour, and contracted servitude) which he regarded as an “anomalous necessity” for the development of capitalism. The ‘anomaly’ arises because Miles holds tightly to Marx’s analysis of capitalism as a mode of production requiring free labour. Cohen adds prison camp labour in Germany, the Soviet Union and China, and child labour to Miles’ list (R. Cohen, 2006, pp. 30-38).
Miles’ six forms are categorised by their politico-legal status, but significant differences are acknowledged between, for example, seventeenth and nineteenth century indenture, the latter involving the payment of a wage. Cohen’s treatment of indentured labour makes no distinction between the various forms of indenture and contract labour. Some forms of unfreeness, such as convict labour, come closer to a description of slavery, whereas labour tenancy is closer to the European serfdom which immediately preceded Marx’s capitalism, and later forms of indentured labour and contract labour begin to take on the appearance of free labour.
I therefore move...to the analysis of a situation where the capitalist mode of production is dominant. In such circumstances, by definition, the wage labour/capital relation of
production is the primary relation of production and labour power is allocated by means of the market mechanism...under certain historical circumstances the operation of this market mechanism can partially break down and politico-legal means of labour recruitment will be utilised, temporarily but necessarily, to recruit and retain labour power (Miles, 1987, p. 210).
The difficulties that have been claimed by growers in the recruitment of seasonal harvest workers (see Chapter 6) can be seen as an example of this partial breakdown.
Debates have continued into the present in what could be seen as theological fashion over the precise nature of unfree labour and its relationship to capitalism, particularly in relation to debt bonded labour in Asia. Brass (2003, 2011) argues that unfree labour is an essential part of modern capitalism, but contrary to Cohen, claims support for this view in Marx’s writings. Banaji (2003) also cites Marx to claim that free labour is only free in a formal sense and argues against a generalised free/unfree polarity. Lerche (2007), supported by Rogaly (2008, p. 1438), calls for greater nuancing of the arguments and points to a continuum between more-or-less free to fully unfree labour relations.
The various forms of unfree labour since the advent of transatlantic slavery are set out schematically in Figure 2.2. This is not a comprehensive depiction of all unfree labour but shows the forms that
have co-existed with capitalism from its mercantile beginnings around 1500, with some unavoidable Anglophone bias. While Figure 2.2 cannot claim to be an exhaustive summary, several points do emerge.
Firstly, there is a strong historical link between unfree labour and the harvesting of crops. Very often this has been a context in which unfree labour has featured strongly and in Miles’ (1987) terms is a partial break down of the market.
Secondly, there is no simple historical trend in labour conditions which would justify a teleological view that the world moves in inexorable fashion from slavery in the direction of free labour. In human rights terms, today’s consensus sees the exploitation of precarized free labour as more significant than the exploitation of some kinds of unfree labour (see section 2.32).
Thirdly, the categories used are ideal types representing a variety of experiences. For example, the Peruvian “slave” trade of Polynesians in the early 1860s was a particularly oppressive case of Pacific labour recruitment largely indistinguishable from the blackbirding which serviced the Queensland sugar industry. Although It was never officially slavery the majority of “recruits” died in Peru (Maude, 1981). Conversely it has been suggested by Bedford (1973) that the recruitment for Queensland indenture became less subject to force and deception by the late 1870s.
Given this qualification, some features of these ideal labour types are as follows:
Chattel slavery: The worker is the commodity. Usually the labourer is obtained through a
combination of forced abduction or sale, although various forms of deception can take the place of outright violence. The worker is a commodity for life.
Indenture: Two key forms of indenture have been identified; one taking the appearance of the free wage labourer, although the wage will be tokenistic, and the other taking the appearance of slavery, no wage being paid but the worker being supplied with accommodation and food. The form is distinguishable from slavery by the limited time period. Recruitment covers the full range of possibilities from outright force (e.g. blackbirding) to economic incentives. It has been debated whether indenture is closer to slavery or convict labour (C. Anderson, 2009; Tinker, 1974).
Labour Tenancy: Some resemblance to feudal conditions, usually no wage, but some land supplied to the labourer for subsistence production
1600
1700
1800
2000 1900
1501 start of Trans Atlantic slave trade transportation to
Haiti/Dominican Republic, initially in small numbers.
1619 first transported Africans to state of Virginia, as 7 year indenture 1640 start of British indentured labour to Caribbean
1654- First permanent chattel slave in U.S.A. Chattel slavery takes over
From 1700 to 1880 estimated 10.7 million slaves, not including deaths, in transit from Africa.
1788 British convict labour to Australia begins
1838 slavery ends in Caribbean with ‘apprenticeships’ of freed slaves
1840s second indenture period in Caribbean, from India, lasts till late nineteenth century
1860s start of Melanesian indenture to Queensland lasts till early 20th century
1886 Australian legislation for contractual servitude (Aboriginal)
Bracero programme 1942-1964 California
Canadian SAWP scheme 1966 till present day
1857 labour tenancies start in South Africa
1860-62 Pacific slavery in Peru
1890s start of mine migrant labour in South.Africa
European guest worker schemes WWII until mid-70s
Revival of European guest work 1990s Camp labour in several locations throughout twentieth century Source: author
Principal references used: Miles (1987), Castles (1995), Cohen (1987, 2006, 1995),Tinker (1974), Maude (1981), Davis (2008), (Docker, 1970; Graves, 1984; Munro, 1995).
Convict labour/camp labour/prison labour: This refers to a spectrum of forced labour in which the state has criminalised people for diverse reasons and used their productive capacity for economic ends. Two main cases are the convict deportations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and forced labour camps of the twentieth century onwards.
Contractual servitude: This was legally enshrined in Australia after chattel slavery had been outlawed in the Western world. Subsistence is provided but no wage.
Contract migrant labour: The closest to free labour of the various forms. Wages provided, often at exploitative levels, the labourers make a temporary transition from usual residence and often cross international borders. Usually there is no option to change employer during the contract period.
Debt bondage/peonage: Nearly half of the ILO’s estimated 12 million cases of forced labour (International Labour Office, 2005) in the early twenty-first century refer to debt bonded labour in Asia.14 The labourer is in debt and works to pay off the debt, often established at the
beginning of the interaction through deception.
Within this wider context, contract migrant labour can be seen as that form of unfree labour which comes closest to free waged labour. However, a description of contract migrant workers as free waged labourers would be inaccurate because of their inability to change jobs, lack of citizenship, and in many cases their commitments as worker-peasants. Contract migrant labour of the twentieth century does have features in common with nineteenth century indenture and could be regarded as a more modern form of indenture which progresses the human rights of the labourer.
Within this form of analysis free labour can appear as universally less oppressive to the worker, but this is not necessarily so. Indeed, Marx’s own treatment of labour exploitation was principally in the context of free labour (see, for example Marx, 1972, 1977). If we accept Lerche’s (2007) argument that free and unfree labour is described on a spectrum from the worst forms of forced labour through to bonded forms of labour which receive a wage and take on many aspects of free labour,
14 It is this aspect of the ILO’s report which has sparked much current debate about what constitutes unfree labour.
and add to that the understanding that the free/unfree binary was not a human rights indicator but a way of understanding the workings of capitalism, it is therefore necessary to treat with caution any human rights conclusions which may be reached near the boundaries of unfree labour. For example, undocumented workers who may appear as free labourers, having no ties to another mode of production and being free to change employer but lacking citizenship, but may suffer demonstrably worse conditions than some unfree labourers.15
Before focusing on the human rights discourse, I therefore move to the insights provided from a precarised labour perspective. Work done on a segmented labour market predates the discourse on precarious labour but the concept of a secondary labour market exhibits a high level of congruence with that of precarised labour.