> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Voyou <voyou1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, and nothing in H&N's argument goes against this. The idea of a
> > shift from Fordism to post-Fordism doesn't mean that the economy is
> > shifting from widgets to symbols. It means that changes in symbolic
> > forms of production have an affect on widget-based production.
>
> Precisely. I amazed that people still make arguments like the one
> Matthias makes here. Either they aren't reading well or they are
> reading in bad faith,
I ought have clarified that I meant Negri/Hardt _if Bhaskar and the others identifying them with post-Fordism interpret them correctly_. I am certainly not reading well; I attempted Empire and didn't understand a word. But I certainly am grateful to whomever can dumb them down for me.
> though it could also be that H&N are not as
> precise in these arguments as is, say, Virno, who emphasizes that
> dashboards are still being produced in the world, but that industrial
> work is being restructured to be like communicative, symbolic work.
> Has anyone else noticed that truck drivers have computers in their
> cabs?
How is this different from any other increase in capital intensity?