Search

The paper investigates one of the possible models of the modern state, namely: the Schumpeterian Workfare State, on the basis of the analysis of scientific literature. The author gives an assessment of the phenomena that determined the transition to a new production and technical paradigm of Post-Fordism. The paper elucidates the preconditions of formation of the idea of the Schumpeterian Workfare State and its essential characteristics. In particular, it is noted that the model of the Schumpeterian Workfare State is applicable to any capitalist states at the present stage regardless of whether they have passed the stage of Fordism. The author proposes his own definition of the category of the Schumpeterian Workfare State that was missing in the modern domestic theory of the state. The author poses a number of problems that we must resolve for theoretical understanding and practical application of the model of the Schumpeterian Workfare State. To this end, the author believes that it is necessary to update the doctrine about the state in the national science to create solid theoretical foundations for the development and functioning of the Russian Federation at the modern stage.

Sermaye birikim sürecinde ‘kent’, hem üretim ilişkilerinin içinde gerçekleştiği yer olma özelliğine sahip olması bakımından hem de zamanla sermaye tarafından metalaştırılarak kullanılan bir birikim kaynağına dönüşmesi nedeniyle oldukça önemli bir işleve sahiptir. Kapitalizmin her safhasında gerek fiziki gerek sosyo-ekonomik koşullarıyla önemli ölçüde farklılaşan ‘kent’, her yeni dönemde işlevsel ve yapısal olarak farklı form ve rollerle karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu makalenin başlıca amacı öncelikle kapitalizm ve mekan ilişkisini sorgulamak ve sonra kapitalizmin farklı dönemlerinde kentte gerçekleşen değişim ve dönüşüm süreçleri ile kapitalist üretim ilişkilerinin bağlantısını kurmaktır. Bunu da özellikle iki farklı kapitalist dönemi baz alarak, Fordist ve Post Fordist safhada, bir dönemden diğer döneme geçişte değişen dinamikler üzerinden gerçekleştirmektir., In the capital accumulation process, the 'city' has a rather important function both from the perspective that it is the place where production relations take place and as it has, in time, been transformed into a tool of accumulation, commodified and used by capital. The “City”, which has changed significantly with both its physical and socio-economic conditions at every stage of capitalism, presents itself with different functional and structural forms and roles in every new phase. The main purpose of this article is to connect the processes of change and transformation that have taken place in the city in different periods of capitalism with the relations of capitalist production. It does this by focusing particularly on two different capitalist periods, the Fordist and Post-Fordist stages, and examining, in this context, the dynamics that emerged during the transition from one period to the next.

В статье исследуется феномен позднего капитализма. Поздний капитализм рассматривается как форма капиталистического производства, которая пришла на смену развитым формам капитализма 1950-х — 1960-х гг. Иначе данный переход именуется переходом от фордизма к постфордизму.Фордизм определяется как социально-экономическая система, возникшая в послевоенный период на Западе (США и Западная Европа) и типичными особенностями которой были массовое производство в рамках крупной вертикально интегрированной корпорации, а также создание соответствующих стабильных массовых рынков. В противоположность фордизму постфордизм представляет собой систему, которая сформировалась в условиях начавшейся глобализации и отражала в значительной мере как изменения на глобальных рынках, так и собственные внутренние противоречия фордизма.Последовательно рассматривается сначала становление фордистской системы (производственный и социальный проект Форда и послевоенный «фордистский компромисс»), а затем становление постфордистской системы. Особенности последней раскрываются на примере известной концепции американских авторов М. Пиоре и Ч. Сабеля. Также на материале концепции французских исследователей Л. Болтански и Э. Кьяпелло рассматривается идеология современного (позднего) капитализма. Для того чтобы показать многообразие форм (в том числе региональных) позднего капитализма, автор обращается к концепции известного американского социолога М. Кастельса.На примере фордизма и постфордизма можно убедиться в том, что капитализм — весьма гибкая и адаптивная система, однако постфордизм представляет собой как бы радикализацию «гибкости» и инновационности, изначально присущей капиталистической системе.

This speculative paper enquires into the discourse of the ‘end of labour’ or ‘disappearance of labour’ as a result of the development of ‘intelligent capitalism’ clearly seen in ‘intelligent manufa...

Regulation School and Social Structures of Accumulation periodizations of capitalism switched the course of Marxist theory away from theorizing stages of capitalism based upon a historical teleology. By combining research strategies of systematizing empirical history and elaborating upon a constant of capitalism each approach arrived at the idea of intermediate theory as a “level” of theory mediating between abstract economic theory and historical studies. Intermediate or mid-range theory operates as a form of institutional analysis capturing non-economic supports capital relies upon to avert crises and sustain decades of accumulation. Concern of these theories with factors stabilizing accumulation also brings to bear analysis of crises tendencies of capitalism. Of particular interest in this chapter are debates among Marxist and non-Marxist theories of the specific crises tendencies which led to the demise of the post-WWII golden age of capitalism.

Labor process theory has produced important typologies of managerial control and a rich body of empirical case studies. However, it has struggled to deal with genuine cases of upskilling and worker empowerment. This chapter revisits Marx to show that he theorized economic development, technological change and the capitalist labor process as contradictory processes evolving across distinct stages. While Marx saw deskilling as dominant in the earliest stages of capitalism, he also theorized tendencies for upskilling. The chapter then reviews the early debates within labor process theory over deskilling versus responsible autonomy and coercion versus consent. It highlights how labor process research has, with a few important exceptions, neglected to systematically consider the contradictory nature of labor process dynamics. Finally, the chapter proposes that a central contradiction within the labor process is between management-as-coordination versus management-as-discipline. It suggests that this contradiction has become intensified in the current stage of capitalism: post-Fordism.

Robin Murray talks to Jeremy Gilbert and Andrew GoffeyInTrODUCTIOnThis issue of New Formations is concerned with a complex of issues around the politics of networks, 'control' and 'security' societies as defined by Deleuze and Foucault respectively, and post-Fordism. In fact Maurizio Lazzarato, for one, has explicitly linked the latter two phenomena, understanding postFordism as more-or-less the direct consequence of new techniques of power and governance as described by Foucault being deployed in the context of processes of capitalist production.Today the 'post-Fordist' hypothesis seems more or less irrefutable. While some of the key features of 'Fordist' capitalism - such as assemblyline production - remain central to global manufacturing (above all in China), they are no longer bundled with the other key features of 'Fordism', such as a strict gendered division of labour and a macro-economic policy committed to maintaining high aggregate demand within the same nation state in which production is concentrated. Industrial automation, market differentiation, corporate disaggregation, labour market specialisation, justin-time production and the expansion of the retail, IT and service sectors have transformed economies beyond recognition, not just in the old industrial heartlands of northern Europe and north America, but in differentiated ways on a global scale. What's more, these changes have been bound up with profound cultural, social and political changes, as commentators such as David Harvey were already discerning at the end of the 1980s. It is worth bearing in mind, then, that when the hypothesis was first advanced at the end of the 1970s, the idea that such changes would have any significant results at all was widely regarded as controversial, and was much resisted.Robin Murray has been one of the UK's leading radical economists for many years. An expert on co-operatives, social enterprise and institutional and technological innovation, he was Director of Industry for the Greater London Council during the 1980s. This was the period during which the GLC was led by Ken Livingstone, enacting one of the most radical progressive programmes of any major governmental body in British history. Directly influenced by this experience, Murray wrote two celebrated articles for the British monthly Marxism Today on the subject of emergent 'post-Fordism' in the second half of the 1980s. These two essays 'After Henry' and 'Benetton Britain' were key in introducing the concept of post-Fordism to the wider left in the UK.1 new Labour would later take up the idea of post-Fordism as dictating a narrowly individualist culture and an approach to economic management and publicservice reform which was wholly informed by neoliberal ideology. But this was never Murray's conclusion. Instead he has argued consistently that the new technological and organisational forms of contemporary production are adaptable to classic democratic socialist objectives, and facilitate collaborative creativity, democratic self-management and co-operative production.In this interview Andrew Goffey and Jeremy Gilbert discuss a wide range of these issues with Murray, for whose time and co-operation we remain extremely grateful.POsT-FOrDIsM In PrACTICEJeremy I was hoping that initially you could say a bit about the idea of postFordism, and its reception history in this country, because you were one of the first people writing about it robin, at least in a context that was widely read.Robin Well, for me, it originated in our experience at the GLC, not from any writing. Throughout the 1970s, and right up until the drafting of Labour's London Manifesto for the 1981 municipal elections, the predominant economic paradigm was Fordism: left economic industrial strategy was based on the idea of scale and rationalisation. The critique of industrial Britain across the political spectrum was that it was backward. It had too many old family firms, who underinvested and weren't good at managing. …

This article examines how the representation of work changed in Jean-Luc Godard's films over the years 1972–1982. It considers three films: Tout va Men/Everything's All Right (1972), signed jointly by Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin, Sauve qui peut (la vie)/Every Man for Himself (1979) and Passion (1982). It argues that Godard presents in them characters who are unhappy in their work and search for alternatives, which proves very difficult. The three films are discussed in the context of the transformation that took place in the ‘wider world’ in the 1970s. They include, in Western Europe, the shift from Fordism to post-Fordism, marked by mass redundancies, factory closures and the decline of the workers' movement, the increase in immigrant labour, and the blurring of boundaries between blue- and white-collar workers, and in Poland, the rise of the Solidarity movement and imposition of martial law. The three films also possibly reflect Godard's gradual loss of interest in the topic of work, o...

The commercial exploitation of scientific knowledge and increased public participation in democratic decision-making about science and technology have emerged as the two central themes of contemporary science policy in Britain. We argue that the prominence of participatory discourse in contemporary science policy is primarily due to the close fit of this discourse with the post-Fordist and post-industrial economic strategy of the British state. Participation is a form of immaterial labour which gains currency in this phase of capitalism, blurring the distinctions between production and consumption, and between the economy and the political or communicative public sphere. Participation is cognitive, interpretative, affective, and social work which enters into the construction of technologies as bundled material artefacts and cultural meanings. Participation operates both in the production and consumption of goods and in the legitimation of social and political relations. Public engagement exercises prepare...

At the center of contemporary discourse on technology — or the digital discourse — is the assertion that network technology ushers in a new phase of capitalism which is more democratic, participatory, and de-alienating for individuals. Rather than viewing this discourse as a transparent description of the new realities of techno-capitalism and judging its claims as true (as the hegemonic view sees it) or false (a view expressed by few critical voices), this article offers a new framework which sees the digital discourse as signaling a historical shift in the technological legitimation of capitalism, concurrent with the emergence of the post-Fordist phase of capitalism. Technology discourse legitimated the Fordist phase of capitalism by stressing the ability of technology and technique to mitigate exploitation. It hence legitimated the interventionist welfare state, the central planning in businesses and the economy, the hierarchized corporation, and the tenured worker. In contrast, contemporary technology discourse legitimates the post-Fordist phase of capitalism by stressing the ability of technology to mitigate alienation. It hence legitimates the withdrawal of the state from markets, the dehierarchization and decentralization of businesses, and the flexibilization of production and the labor process.

This essay investigates the political economy of sexuality through an interpretation of sex shows for foreigners in Bangkok, Thailand. Reading these performances as both symptoms of, and analytical commentaries on, Western consumer desire, the essay suggests the ‘pussy shows’ parody the mass production that was a hallmark of Western masculine identity under Fordism. This reading makes a case for the erotic generativity of capitalism, illuminating how Western, post-Fordist political economy of the post-1970s generated demand for these erotic services in Asia and how Western, heterosexual masculine desire is integrated into global capitalist circuits.

This entry describes the central features of Fordism and post-Fordism with special focus on consumerism. It summarizes how the organizational and political–legal arrangements during post-Fordism made credit readily available, encouraged home ownership, and created opportunities for risk taking. The entry concludes by pointing out that the meltdown of financial markets in 2008 and the subsequent Great Recession raise important questions about the capacity of post-Fordist consumer capitalism to sustain capitalist growth and development in the long term. Keywords: capitalism; consumption; culture; ideology; political economy

This article is intended as a contribution to the ethnography of contemporary capitalism. I analyze the case of the Mondragón cooperative model and consider what its international fame tells us about the regime of post-Fordism. I explore the constitution of the Mondragón model through the singular discourse of labor–management cooperation. I show how the model is produced by the discursive practices of omission and decontextualization. Mondragón can only be constructed as an alternative to and critique of capitalism if (1) workers’ experiences are erased; (2) politics are marginalized; and (3) the cooperatives are de-territorialized from the global economic context. By providing the missing contexts, I offer a competing narrative, portraying cooperation as a class-interested discourse that undermines workers’ power. My account of how the Mondragón model was produced is a revealing case of the production of global capitalist discourses in a period of economic and ideological shifts to post-Fordism.

Fordism refers to the twentieth-century phase of capitalism (c.1918–1978), characterized by the centrality of bureaucratized firms, an interventionist state, national unions, and the coordination of mass production and mass consumption. This system reached its peak in the first two post–World War II decades, and entered its final crisis in the 1970s. By the 1980s, pertinent literature described the contemporary socio-economic conditions as post-Fordist. Keywords: capitalism; commodity; industrialization; labor; labor supply; manufacturing; productivity

The story of the rise of Fordism and the subsequent transition to post-Fordism has been a staple of economic geography pedagogy. It builds on the concept of Fordism first set out by Gramsci in the 1920s. This identified two key components. The first was the industrial workplace where workers specialized narrowly on distinct tasks and were regulated by the mechanized progress of the assembly line. The second was high wages. Together, these created a new era of mass production of standardized goods, and a new kind of working class which traded alienating work for the new pleasures of consumerism. The idea that Fordism designated a particular chapter in the history of capitalism was revived in the 1970s and became a central theme in the new economic geographies of the 1980s and 1990s. These focused on Fordism’s alleged successor, post-Fordism. The most influential accounts suggested this would be defined by the generalization of flexible specialization, a new mode of production based on rapid changes in product and on batch production technologies mobilizing the boundless creativity of the workforce. The transition to this post-Fordist ‘flexible specialization’ would involve remaking the region and the city, and new policy orientations. This narrative proved enormously influential. But many of its empirical and historical claims were found wanting, along with the logic of the relationships it presumed between microeconomic phenomena, macroeconomic trends, and economic governance. It offers an instructive case study in the evolution of ideas in geography.

L’article a pour objet de montrer l’intérêt d’un rapprochement entre la Théorie de la Régulation et le référentiel, analytique et normatif, du développement durable. Si ce rapprochement ne se conçoit pas sans précautions, les deux constructions ne se situant pas sur le même plan épistémologique, chacune aide cependant à éclairer les zones d’ombre laissées par l’autre. La mise en rapport est notamment féconde pour les entrées suivantes : conceptualisation du système économique, rapport aux institutions, prise en compte de l’environnement, rapport au temps, analyse des ruptures, et cadre spatial. À titre de première illustration, la suite de l’article mobilise les catégories régulationnistes pour questionner les dynamiques fordiste et post-fordiste(s) au crible de la durabilité. La mise en évidence d’antagonismes forts entre ces modes de développement particuliers et les enjeux de durabilité invite à se demander si, plus fondamentalement, certaines caractéristiques essentielles du capitalisme ne seraient pas en cause.Régulation theory and sustainable development. The article aims to show the importance of a rapprochement between Régulation theory and the analytical and prescriptive approaches of sustainable development. This rapprochement should not be considered lightly, as the two constructions are not on the same epistemological level, yet each helps to clarify the grey areas left by the other. The relationship is particularly productive in the following areas: conceptualisation of the economic system, relationship to institutions, recognition of environmental factors, time relationships, crises analysis and spatial framework. The article illustrates this rapprochement by using the regulationist categories to examine Fordist and post-Fordist dynamics from the sustainability viewpoint. The emergence of strong antagonisms between these particular modes of development and sustainability issues leads one to ask, more fundamentally, whether certain essential features of capitalism are not being questioned.

The evidence today is practically uncontested: about thirty years ago we left Fordism behind and entered a new phase of capitalism. That the structures of the post-Fordist social order call for new modes of social critique is also a prevalent idea. The category of alienation continues, however, to be discredited. Nevertheless it is not clear that the categories of democracy (as apparatuses of non-domination), justice and the good life are capable of bringing about the political effects that may be expected today from the concept of alienation. For these reasons, not only the historical diagnostic that appears to have authorized jettisoning the problematic of alienation but also the model of critique used to replace it demand critical scrutiny.

"Der Beitrag folgt einer dreiteiligen Argumentation: 1. Aus der Rekonstruktion einiger zentraler Elemente der fordistischen Gesellschaftsformation, deren Krise sowie der auf Krisenbewältigung gerichteten neueren Restrukturierungsprozesse des kapitalistischen Produktionsprozesses lässt sich die Leithypothese eines heterogen-ambivalenten Übergangs, einer Permanenz von Phasen im Globalisierungsprozess des Kapitals systematisch (und nicht nur als empirische Beschreibung) begründen. 2. Mit Hilfe dieses Befunds werden dann die Veränderungen in den Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsverhältnissen und ihre historische Bedeutung für die Reproduktion des kapitalistischen Systems beleuchtet. 3. Schließlich wird in einem dritten Schritt das so vielbemühte Transformationsproblem von Arbeitsvermögen in Arbeitsleistung reformuliert und um eine systematische Dimension erweitert. Daraus ergibt sich das Problem, die neue Bedeutung der Form Person (unter Rückgriff auf die Luhmannsche Kommunikationstheorie) zu erörtern." (Textauszug)