>> H&N were primarily arguing that it really is a post-Fordist (I can't stand
> that term) world we live in? The economy's actually shifted to emphasizing
> language and communication?
I think H&N are right to be aware of and try to describe shifts in types of labor and the like. The problem for me isn't the empirical validity of their claims but when they try to turn these "new" job types (affective, communicative--post-Fordist labor, which is a term I like and think is useful) into the revolutionary vanguard of the working class. As Robert said, banal dialecticism.