Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:54:01 -0500
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Fordism Still Reigns?


Doug wrote:
>There are *always* major transformations taking place in the world economy;
>I think the burden of proof is on those who argue that there's been some
>kind of epochal break in capitalism that's different in degree or kind from
>previous transformations. But how is the collection of phenomena referred
>to as post-Fordism any more radical an innovation than were the steamship
>or the railroad or the automobile or the telephone?
>
>In what sense is industrial capitalism itself "quickly being surpassed"? Do
>we not have big industries cranking out lots of stuff? Aren't computers and
>telephones and all the other totems of the Information Age mass produced by
>industrial workers? Don't the First World economies still depend on high
>levels of mass consumption? As Larry Summers says, you've got to
>demonstrate what the supposed revolution in production has revolutionized
><http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Globalization_sequel.html>.

I think that the idea of post-Fordism as a radical transformation of
capitalism has gained currency from the following reasons:

(1) the discourse on post-Fordism is a 'left-wing' mirror image of the
hegemony of neoliberalism. It's a way of saying 'farewell' to not only
revolutionary marxism but also social democracy.

(2) the discourse on post-Fordism is an ironic offshoot of *workerism*.
They see the relative visibility, proportion, and bargaining power of the
'traditional' working-class--unionlized male industrial workers in core
capitalist countries--have and are further diminishing, and they conclude,
variously, depending on who is the proponent of this discourse, that
'class' is an impossible or useless concept, that the working-class is not
central to capitalism, that global capital is all too powerful and there's
nothing we can do about it, that 'new identities' have fragmented 'old
unity' based on class, that it is knowledge, not labor, that is productive
of wealth, and the like.

(3) the discourse on post-Fordism, esp. the idea that it is knowledge
production that matters (and not physical production of, say, computers)
flatters its proponents--intellectuals.

(4) the discourse on post-Fordism thrives on people's inability to
distinguish the newly emergent, sexy, and spectacular elements + trends
from the general conditions of production. It ignores the fact that certain
newly emergent elements + trends are not only confined to specific
areas/sectors but also can not be generalized under capitalism; this
conflation of the emergent with the universal is an occupational hazard for
futurists (such as Jeremy Rifkin).

Yoshie




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---