"fordism/postfordism" (was: IG Farben)

[Lorentzen / Nicklaus]

Terrance schrieb:

> KXX4493553 at aol.com wrote:
> > In the sociological literature there is separated between "fordism" and
> > "postfordism". 

> Yes, I'm familiar with this, but I don't buy it. Too simple,
> like postmodern and modern. 


   though i agree concerning postmodern/modern, i, too, think the distinction 
   between "fordism" and "postfordism" is not without value when we want to 
   understand what's - 'polit-economically' - happening in the present. a good 
   study on the limits and blind spots of european "fordism" is burkhart lutz' 
   "der kurze traum immerwährender prosperität. eine neuinterpretation der 
   industriell-kapitalistischen entwicklung im europa des 20. jahrhunderts" 
   (ffm/nyc 1984: campus). but, of course, terms like "fordism"/"postfordism" 
   are "ideal-types" in the weberian sense, which have to be specified in 
   concrete constellations. and here, as usual, the experts do not consent. 
   in "the rise of the network society" [1996] manuel castells writes: 
   "whichever the causes and the genesis of the organizational transformation, 
   there was from the mid-1970s onwards a major divide (industrial and 
   otherwise)in the organization of production and markets in the global 
   economy; (...) many organizational changes were aimed at redefining labor 
   processes and employment practices, introducing the model of 'lean 
   production' with the objective of saving labor, by the automation of jobs, 
   elimination of tasks, and suppression of managerial layers. (...) in most 
   cases these trajectories evolved from industrial organization forms, such as 
   the vertically integrated corporation and the small business firm, that had 
   become unable to perform their tasks under the new structural conditions of 
   production and markets, a trend that became fully apparent in the crisis of 
   the 1970s. in other cultural contexts, new organizational forms emerged from 
   preexisting ones that had been pushed aside by the classical model of 
   industrial organization, to find new life in the requirements of the new 
   economy and in the possibilities offered by new technologies. several 
   organizational trends evolved from the process of capitalist restructuring 
   and industrial transition." (pp. 153f.) 

   this rising degree of social "hyper-complexity", it's not "simple" at all ... 
   like henry adams sez in his 'education' (p. 496): "an average mind had 
   succumbed already in 1850; it could no longer understand the problem in 
   1900." & in 1945? "those like slothrop with the greatest interest in 
   discovering the truth, were thrown back on dreams, psychic flashes, omens, 
   cryptographies, drug-epistemologies, all dancing on a ground of terror, 
   contradiction, absurdity" (gr, p. 582). & --- t o d a y ?! 

   neither paranoid nor anti-paranoid: kai