Critically evaluate to what extent we can speak of a post-Fordist revolution by exploring the contemporary organization of work and consumption. To a certain extent, we can speak of a post-Fordist revolution by exploring the contemporary organization of work and consumption. However, themes of original Fordism still exist in modern society. The concept of Fordism revolves around consumption, production and working conditions. It tends to be used as a management theory. Modernity can provide a contribution and an explanation to the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism. Which can be described in overall terms of urbanization, rationalization, industrialization, enlightenment and scientific proof, as well as many other contributing factors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay The industrial revolution and creation of the 20th century is a great example of this. The shift from Fordism to post-Fordism not only influences the way we think about consumers and consumption, but also demonstrates the alteration of the organization of work in contemporary society. Post-Fordism promotes the shift from complex consumption to individualism, as well as involvement in changing the class structure and its disappearance. Neoliberalism validates that society is in a new stage of capitalism and that the biggest voice is that of corporations, because they are in power and control the production of work. All this will be discussed to evaluate the conclusions on whether we can speak of a post-Fordist revolution when exploring the contemporary organization of work and consumption. First, Fordism was initially a pattern of production that exemplifies and defines industrial society. Fordism introduced mass consumption, mass employment and mass production. All of this contributes to a revolution in the functioning of society, particularly in the field of work. Furthermore, the development of a factory system allowed us, as a society, to mass produce, using new technologies to systematize the work process. To elaborate, the important principles of this progression involved product standardization which aimed to include minimum parts in a product, thus making it more competitive to produce. Tasks were also broken down into fundamental parts to speed up the work process, as well as using a conveyor belt as an assembly line, allowing for a continuous flow. More importantly, rationalization can be used to explore the uprising in which businesses become more efficient, which makes society more efficient. Julien Freund speaks of rationalization as "the organization of life by a division and coordination of activities on the basis of an exact study of the relationships of men among themselves, with their tools and their environment to achieve greater efficiency and productivity” (Kumar, 1977). Additionally, Taylor Frederick established “Taylorism” which explained the use of fragmentation to simplify work and aimed to reduce skill requirements. Normalization was used to remove periods of inactivity. The beginning and the end, as well as the strategy and control, are the responsibility of the administration, workers do not need to think and are lazy. Every implication of Taylorism is standardized, including lifestylesand employment contracts. To continue, Fordism meant that mass production led to higher profits because products were now affordable, produced faster, and in high demand. So there was plenty of money left to raise salaries. The introduction of mass production led to an economic boom. (Gramsci, 1971) identified mass production as the “new way of life” and the “American way.” He believed that this amplified prosperity for consumption and mass production. Subsequently, mass production did not require skilled workers for the assembly line and therefore, in some sense, deskilled them. As technology has become our new intelligence and It can be said to have replaced capitalism. As a result, mass production leads factory workers to alienation in several forms, one being from the product itself, since the product is made for someone else. Isolation can be associated with factory work because you are isolated from other workers and are not allowed to do the work in your own way. This calls into question the positive aspects of mass production. This also relates to the crisis of Fordism in the 1970s, which could justify the support needed to move towards a post-Fordist revolution in terms of consumption and the organization of work. (Braverman, H. 1974) argues that wages cannot reward the nature with which capitalism has deskilled workers, they do not benefit efficiency or production, only leading to strikes that degrade industries. Likewise, regulation theory (Aglietta, 1976) maintained the belief that Fordism was responsible for the regulation between consumption and production. An example of this was a focus on supply, which involved cutting taxes in the hopes of boosting industry while building consensus, a trifecta relationship between business, workers, and the state that regulates conflicts. As the state controls laws regarding labor, for example, pay for employment contracts, i.e. working hours. Similarly, the introduction of “flexible specialization” contributed to the crisis of Fordism and the inevitable need for further revolutions. To grow, the problem was the saturation of mass markets when it came to the basic products of daily life. So there is a demand for new products and new ideas. Basic brands are unlikely to expand much further once they reach their peak. A company can also mass produce too much of a product that cannot be sold and lose money. Innovation also explains market saturation, as replacement is key in a post-Fordist society. As new smartphones are constantly releasing new models and everyone wants to have the latest iPhone. A “niche” invention can achieve a “high penetration rate” (Spacey, 2018). The welfare state is a safety net in society. Some people feel like they don't have to work and rely on 'handouts', like benefit money. This can encourage people to be lazy. This puts the workforce at a disadvantage because people have the option of not working. However, I suppose it is debatable whether an underclass will always need to remain in society to be able to function resourcefully. On the other hand, in contrast and growth with Fordism, post-Fordism has allowed us to understand how we can talk about contemporary consumption and the organization of work as a post-Fordist revolution. Flexible specialization is oneexcellent example, being not only the initiator of change but also an essential element of contemporary consumption. Specifically, flexible specialization allows you to change a product at the last minute to meet consumer demand. We can imply the use of how the consumption model has changed, it is no longer just about complex products but more about individualism, products adapted to individual desires. Which also interestingly reflects a change in societal attitudes, people want to be different and stand out from the crowd. People want to use products to strengthen their social class and social position in society. Buyers are more sophisticated and demand higher quality products with a personal touch. For example, JD sports personalizes sneakers, meaning you can design them yourself and even engrave names (Anon, 2018). It is now more about quality than quantity, increased care and services. (Piore and Sabel, 1984: 183-93) support this view because they emphasize that "new ideas can be transformed into new products" and that machines and technology hardly need to change to allow this. Both believe that flexible changes in specialization for a change in workforce, more skilled and more flexible workers are necessary. (Bell, D., 1976) can support this assertion by describing a "knowledge society" that makes careers require more skills, resulting in a more educated society and workforce. Bell believes that the production of goods is not the production of services. And believes that new ideas are the effective way to fuel the economy, which further ensures that we are living in a post-Fordist revolution. Workers receive different recognition and new meanings. Furthermore, (Sabel 1984:250-80; Sabel 1989:32-3) believes that flexible specialization benefits small businesses as well as large businesses, because larger businesses can also supply several small, in-demand markets. It is claimed that “the most successful economies are generally those in which large and small businesses do not see each other as rivals but as partners” (Piore and Sabel 1984: 217-220). For many, flexible specialization has been the main characteristic of post-Fordism, fully defining what it stands for and the demand for “uniqueness”. The characteristics of an "information society" and a "professional structure" facilitate the debate on contemporary consumption and the organization of work which constitute a post-Fordist revolution, to the extent that employment is a radical change in the work and employment of the service sector. The fact that work is now done face-to-face rather than simply technological, demonstrates the birth of a post-Fordist society. There has been an increase in health services and production facilities as well as an increase in technical and managerial jobs. Agricultural employment is now a thing of the past. Manuel Castells (1996) speaks of a “network society,” suggesting that we are witnessing a “new type of economy.” A network society can be linked to political, social, cultural and economic changes. Due to the complexity of networks, communication technologies and digital information. However, Simon Clarke (1990: 75) disagrees with the assertion that contemporary consumption and work organization is a post-Fordist revolution as he quotes: "Post-Fordism is not not a reality, not even a vision