Labor, Capital, and Machine: Toward a Labor Process Theory for HCI

TL;DR

The paper argues that HCI research must engage labor as a political-economic question by importing Labor Process Theory (LPT) to analyze how capital, labor, and machines organize production. It traces LPT from Marx through Braverman to Burawoy and later developments, then applies this lens to map how HCI has studied labor, including control, resistance, and emotional labor, across deskilling, platform work, and global production. The authors propose a forward-looking agenda integrating distinctions between labor and work, linking practice to value production, studying management, analyzing consent, extending analysis beyond production sites, and exploring alternative institutions and critical designs. Their contribution lies in providing a theory-grounded critique to guide design and policy, offering concrete directions for critical, normative, and institution-building work in HCI to address exploitation and power in tech-mediated work.

Abstract

The HCI community has called for renewed attention to labor issues and the political economy of computing. Yet much work remains in engaging with labor theory to better understand modern work and workers. This article traces the development of Labor Process Theory (LPT) -- from Karl Marx and Harry Braverman to Michael Burawoy and beyond -- and introduces it as an essential yet underutilized resource for structural analysis of work under capitalism and the design of computing systems. We examine HCI literature on labor, investigating focal themes and conceptual, empirical, and design approaches. Drawing from LPT, we offer directions for HCI research and practice: distinguish labor from work, link work practice to value production, study up the management, analyze consent and legitimacy, move beyond the point of production, design alternative institutions, and unnaturalize bourgeois designs. These directions can deepen analyses of tech-mediated workplace regimes, inform critical and normative designs, and strengthen the field's connection to broader political economic critique.

Figures (2)

• Figure 1: Value production and appropriation in the capitalist labor process. A and C represent the beginning and end of a working day, respectively. B is the hypothetical time point where the worker has produced value equal to their wage and begins producing surplus for the capitalist(s). In practice, B cannot be located on the timeline because wages are paid only when the working day ends.
• Figure 2: Analytical distinction between labor and work. Both refer to human effort in production, but emphasize different facets. In Marxist terms, labor captures the abstract, value-producing aspect of human effort, while work refers to its concrete, use-value-producing aspect. The transformation process (Labor Power → Labor) foregrounds managerial control and worker resistance—the domain of LPT. The substantiation process (Work → Commodities) foregrounds task specification and worker improvisation—the domain of conventional work practice studies. The dashed arrow indicates how efficient commodity production reduces the cost of reproducing labor power, intensifying exploitation (see §\ref{['S2.1: hiddenAbode']}).