Considering that capitalist society is divided into social classes, as Karl Marx said, it is a fact that these classes have antagonistic interests. This antagonism, obviously, would be fundamental for thinking about the permanent class struggle characterized in the Marxian work, having in the conflicts from the world of work to its manifestation, as these are the result of the social relations of production that are characteristic of the system. capitalist.
But what is the nature of these conflicts relevant to the production of material life, that is, to the daily life of the world of work? To think of a brief (but not enough) answer, just consider the simple reasoning: while the worker seeks better wages and working conditions, entrepreneurs aim to increase profit and expand their companies.
In addition, the valorization of a high rationalization of production processes since the industrial revolution, the increase in the exploitation of human labor and the consequent accumulation of wealth and increased social inequality have only intensified hostilities and divergences between classes throughout the history of capitalism as a mode of production. predominant.
It can be pointed out that the first resistance movements of workers between the 18th and 19th centuries were motivated by the difficulty of adapting to this new production model – now industrial – since individuals were still linked to another context of greater freedom and autonomy regarding work practices. One of the first workers' uprisings against entrepreneurs was the so-called Luddist movement, which took place at the beginning of the century. XIX, in which workers were willing to break the machines, which (in their understanding) would be stealing their jobs.
Nowadays, it is worth saying that technological development leads to the exclusion of human labor, generating a process of structural unemployment. The current situation of development of capitalism is marked by the strong automation of production, that is, the significant irreversible process of transformations in the production process through the replacement of labor human. That is why it is necessary to understand how the struggle between class interests takes place and, more precisely, how conflicts occur in the world of work, since these transformations can mean a precariousness of work, if we think, for example, in the levels of unemployment.
In other words, structural changes can bring more complications for the worker (who now must study more, prepare more, compete more for vacancies that are scarce). For Ricardo Antunes (2011), "when live work [in fact workers] is eliminated, the worker becomes precarious, becomes street vendors, does odd jobs, etc." (ANTUNES, 2011, p. 06). The precariousness of work means the dismantling of labor rights. Hence the importance of reflecting on this theme, on the perverse logic of capitalism, evaluating ways to maintain guarantees for the worker, who is the weakest side of this conflict.
Also according to Antunes (2011), “reducing the working day, discussing what to produce, for whom to produce and how to produce it are urgent actions. In doing so, we are beginning to discuss the founding elements of the system of social metabolism of capital that is profoundly destructive” (Ibid., p. 06). Not only is this aspect discussed between entrepreneurs and workers, but also about salary issues, working hours, job generation, profit sharing, security conditions, career plans, among many other aspects related to labor rights acquired throughout the 20th century, through the organization of the labor movement through unions, the unionism.
However, it is a fact that working conditions and labor rights have somewhat advanced. Obviously, these advances in terms of workers' rights and guarantees were not gifts from the business class, but fundamentally the result of the struggle of union and workers' movements. In today's Brazil, the so-called trade union centrals, in general terms, have the following points as their demand: changes in economic policy to reduce interest rates and distribute income; reduction of working hours from 44 hours per week to 40 hours; extinction of the social security factor; and regulation of service outsourcing.
Still, despite advances in work and the resolution of some conflicts (through labor legislation) that result from it, the logic of exploitation inherent to capitalism (so present in the daily life of the worker), not even what Marx called the brutishness of man by the routinization of work and, consequently, of the life.
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/sociologia/conflitos-precarizacao-no-mundo-trabalho.htm
