ILPC 2026

 The worldwide transformations of the work, in the last 40 years, have supposed fundamental changes in different dimensions. In this paper we focus on thinking over, the impact of the transformations in the social relations between the capital and work, on the scope and productive possibilities of automation in the computer age. It is a gateway to analyze one of the fundamental theses of the historical materialism: the contradiction between the social relations of production and the development of the work strengths, which in our research question is translated into value: How do transformations in the forms of management and control on the workers, in the age of the computer processes of work, impact on the productive efficiency in companies of constant flow?

To answer to our question, we use information obtained by means of ethnographic work in transnational companies in Bolivia, during approximately 3 years field work, in which semi-structured observation with the use of field diary was resorted to and the development of in-depth qualitative interviews with key informants. For the theoretical reflection of empirical material, this paper takes up the tradition of the Marxist contribution about the struggle between workers and employers for the control of the work process. In this way, recovers; on one hand, the contribution of authors such as Paul Edwards and Stephen Marglín of American radical current and; on the other hand, the contributions of authors such as Karel Kosic, j., Thompson, James Scott, Michel Certeau, William Rosberry, referred to the configuration of the response to domination by social groups and subaltern classes. Based on epistemological reflection, on the theoretical production of these authors, and in the light of our empirical reference, we discuss with the poststructuralist epistemology of major influence on the contemporary intellectual production of the sociology of work. This theoretical perspective, has as its main exponent, the clinical sociology, which postulates a dualistic understanding of the subject-worker, considering it as a target object, which can not affect.  In its consideration, the workers are seen, eminently, as passive objects, victims of a perverse domination managerial ("colonization of the workers subjectivity" Blanchard, 1999, De Gaulejac, 2005, Lahera, 2206, Salmon 2007, among others). Our field results denied this objectified view of workers, showing, how their own answers (fitness, strength, struggle) to dominance, become not only channels of visualization of the contradiction, between the development of the productive forces and the relations of capitalist domination and exploitation, but also, in sign of their capabilities and possibilities of open alternatives to brake that control the development of the productive efficiency, constitutes  employer control upon the work.