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 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.

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.

"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)

Google’s dominance over the web allows it to dictate various norms and practices that regulate the state of contemporary capitalism online. The way in which Google operates as a company and generates revenue is often sidelined in academic discussions regarding the cultural implications of how its search engine functions. Almost 90% of Google’s revenue is derived from advertising, despite Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s original academic paper regarding Google in which they argue that advertising produces mixed motives that make it an unfeasible way to fund search engines. This article outlines how Google’s model of advertising reflects and encourages wider changes in capitalism as it shifts from its twentieth-century Fordist incarnation to contemporary Post-Fordist arrangements of labour. In doing so, this article analyses Google’s two main advertising systems, AdWords and AdSense, and proposes that these financial models have significant effects upon online discourse. In discussing AdWords, this article details some of the tensions between the local and the global that develop when tracing flows of information and capital, specifically highlighting Google’s impact on the decline of online language diversity. In outlining AdSense, this article demonstrates how Google’s hegemonic control prescribes which parts of the web can be monetised and which remain unprofitable. In particular, in drawing from existing studies, evidence is provided that Google’s AdSense programme, along with Google’s relationship with Facebook, incentivised the rise of fake news in the 2016 US presidential election. This work builds on existing scholarship to demonstrate that Google’s economic influence has varied and far-reaching effects in a number of contexts and is relevant to scholars in a range of disciplines. As such, this article is intended as a discursive introduction to the topic and does not require specific disciplinary background knowledge. In doing so, this article does not attempt to provide the final word on Google’s relationship to digital capitalism, but rather, demonstrate the profitability of a Post-Fordist perspective, in order to enable a wider engagement with the issues identified.