In a context marked by the precariousness of working conditions and the proliferation of intermittent, invisible and unpaid forms of employment, a study involving the participation of the University of Barcelona questions the foundations on which work has traditionally been understood within capitalism.

The main thesis of the study is clear: wage labor, understood as the central social relation of capitalism, should not be considered the universal or dominant model. On the contrary, the study is based on a wide range of informal, precarious and often invisible forms of work, ranging from temporary and informal jobs to labor practices strongly conditioned by the extraction of natural resources or by situations of social and economic confinement. These activities, although they do not fit into classic labor schemes, are fundamental to the production of value in the capitalist system.

The authors argue for a redefinition of the concept of “social labor,” understood not only as work that is remunerated through a wage, but also as the collective human effort—often unrecognized—that enables the reproduction of life and capital accumulation.

This perspective makes visible forms of work that have often been relegated to statistical and legal marginality, but which underpin a large part of modern economies, both in the north and south. Thus, it offers a profound critique of the interpretative frameworks inherited from classical political economy, and presents a new grammar for understanding labor in the era of fragmented capitalism.

The article is structured around several ethnographic cases that exemplify this reality. In Mexico, indigenous families collect pebbles from the beach to export them to the United States, an informal and environmentally destructive activity that combines family labor, child exploitation and a total lack of labor protection.

In the Spanish region of Doñana, migrants hired to pick strawberries work in precarious conditions, subject to restrictive work permits that prevent any mobility or possibility of collective organization. Meanwhile, in the United States, many individuals opt to combine multiple part-time jobs in the face of distrust of traditional stable work, a strategy that reflects decades of labor market flexibility and weakening labor rights.

Far from considering these cases as exceptional or typical of peripheral contexts, the researchers argue that they are representative of the very heart of capitalism today. The authors note that “wage labor has never been the only social relation of capitalism, and today it is more evident than ever.”

This phenomenon, they point out, is not new, but it has become structural and globalized. The article also analyzes the role of the state in the consolidation of these forms of precarious work, as well as the way in which nature—environmental resources—becomes another element exploited in the name of economic development.

In this scenario, the authors propose abandoning the homogeneous idea of “working class” and adopting the notion of “classes of labor,” which is more plural and capable of reflecting the diversity of labor experiences that coexist today. However, this fragmentation not only has economic but also political effects, as it hinders the construction of collective solidarities and shared strategies of resistance. However, the identification of common forms of precariousness could open the door to new alliances between workers across sectors and geographies.

With this article, Susana Narotzky and Sharryn Kasmir contribute to a key debate about understanding the transformations of the world of labor and the tensions between capital and life in the 21st century. The text is part of a special issue dedicated to rethinking labor and class from a critical and global perspective. It does so, moreover, with a clear desire to situate anthropology as a discipline capable of unveiling the invisible but structural mechanisms of exploitation of our time.