Critically evaluate to what extent we can speak of a post-Fordist revolution when exploring the contemporary organization of work and consumption. To a certain extent, we can speak of a post-Fordist revolution when exploring the contemporary organization of work and consumption. However, the themes of the 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 theory of management. Modernity can offer a contribution and an explanation to the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism. Which can be described in terms of a combination of urbanization, rationalization, industrialization, enlightenment, and scientific evidence, along with many other contributing factors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Industrial Revolution and the creation of the 20th century are 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 way work is organized in contemporary society. Post-Fordism assists the shift from complex consumption to individualism, along with involvement in changing class structure and how it is disappearing. Neo-liberalism validates how society is in a new phase of capitalism and the most important voice is corporations as they are in power and control the production of work. All this will be discussed to evaluate the conclusions on the possibility of talking about a post-Fordist revolution when exploring the contemporary organization of work and consumption. First, Fordism was initially a production scheme that illustrates and defines industrial society. Fordism introduced mass consumption, mass employment and mass production. All this contributes to a revolution in the functioning of society, especially in the sphere of work. Furthermore, the development of a factory system has allowed us as a society to mass produce, using new technologies to systematize the work process. To elaborate, significant principles of this progression involved product standardization that aimed to include minimal parts in a product, making it more competitive to produce. Furthermore, tasks were fragmented into key parts to make the work process quicker, along with the use of a conveyor belt as an assembly line, allowing for continuous flow. More importantly, rationalization can be used to explore the uprising where companies are becoming more efficient, as a result, this makes the company more effective. Julien Freund speaks of rationalization as "the organization of life through the division and coordination of activities on the basis of an exact study of the relationships of men among themselves, with their tools and the environment to achieve greater efficiency and productivity" (Kumar, 1977). Furthermore, Taylor Frederick founded "Taylorism" which explained the uses of fragmentation to make work easier and aimed to reduce skill requirements. Standardization was used to remove idle periods. The beginning and ending, as well as strategy and control, are the responsibility of the administration, workers do not need to think and are lazy. Every involvement of Taylorism is standardized, including lifestyles and employment contracts. To continue, Fordism meant that mass production led to higher profits as products were now affordable,made more quickly and in demand. Therefore, a lot of money remained for higher wages. 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 it amplified prosperity for mass consumption and production. Subsequently, mass production did not require skilled assembly line workers, so in a sense it deskilled them. As technology became our new intelligence and arguably replaced capitalism. As a result, mass production leads to the alienation of workers in several forms, one of which is from the product itself, since the product is being manufactured for someone else. Isolation can be associated with factory work as you are isolated from other workers and not allowed to do the work in your own individual and unique way. This challenges the positive aspects of mass production. Equally, this refers to the crisis of Fordism in the 1970s, which could justify the support needed to move to a post-Fordist revolution in terms of consumption and work organisation. (Braverman, H. 1974) states that wages cannot compensate for the nature in which capitalism has deskilled workers, it does not benefit efficiency or production, but only results in strikes that degrade industries. Similarly, Regulation Theory (Aglietta, 1976) supported the belief that Fordism was responsible for the regulation between consumption and production. The emphasis on the supply side is one example, which meant cutting taxes in the hope of a boost in industry. At the same time, a consensus was connected, a three-way relationship between companies, workers and the state that regulates conflicts. Since the state controls labor laws, for example, it pays for employment contracts, i.e. working hours. Likewise, the introduction of “flexible specialization” contributed to the crisis of Fordism and the inevitable need for new revolutions. To expand, the problem was the saturation of mass markets regarding the basic products of daily life. Therefore, there is a demand for new products and ideas. Core brands will be unlikely to extend further once they reach their peak. A company may also mass produce too much of a product that cannot be sold and may lose money. Innovation also explains the saturation of markets as substitution is fundamental in a post-Fordist society. As new smartphones are constantly launching 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 they don't have to work and rely on "handouts", such as benefit money. This can encourage people to be lazy. This disadvantages the workforce as people have the option of not working. However, I guess it's debatable whether an underclass will always need to remain in society in order to function with resources. On the other hand, in contrast and growth compared to Fordism, post-Fordism has made us understand how we can talk about contemporary consumption and the organization of work as a post-Fordist revolution. Flexible specialization is a great example of this, not only being the initiator of change but also a vital focus on contemporary consumption. More specifically, flexible specialization allows you to change a product at the last minute to meet consumer demand. We can involve the use of how the consumption model has changed, it is no longer just about complex products but moreof individualism, of products adapted to individual desires. This interestingly also 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. Shoppers are more sophisticated and demand advanced quality products with a personal touch. For example, JD Sports personalizes sneakers, meaning you can design them yourself and even engrave names (Anon, 2018). Now it's more about quality than quantity, more care and supply. (Piore and Sabel, 1984: 183-93) support this thesis as they point out that "new ideas can be transformed into new products" and that machinery and technology hardly need to change to enable this. Both believe that flexible specialization changes are necessary for a movement of workers, more skilled and flexible workers. (Bell, D., 1976) can support this statement as he described a "knowledge society" that achieves higher skills careers require more skills, which results in a more educated society and workforce. Bell believes that rather than a production of goods, it is a production of services. And he believes that new ideas are the effective way to cultivate the economy, which further ensures that we are living in a post-Fordist revolution. As workers receive different recognition and new meanings. Furthermore, (Sabel 1984: 250-80; Sabel 1989: 32-3) believes that flexible specialization benefits small firms along with larger firms since larger firms can also cater to several small demand markets. It is argued that "the most successful economies tend to be those in which large and small firms see each other not as rivals but as partners" (Piore and Sabel 1984: 217-20). For many, flexible specialization has been the defining feature of post-Fordism, fully defining what it represents and the demand for the “unique.” The characteristics of an “information society” and an “occupational structure” help to argue that contemporary consumption and the organization of work are a post-Fordist revolution since employment is the most radical change and work and l employment in the service sector. The fact that work is now carried out in person and no longer exclusively in the technological field demonstrates the birth of a post-Fordist society. There has been an increase in health services and manufacturing facilities along with an increase in technical and managerial jobs. Agricultural employment is becoming a thing of the past. Manuel Castells (1996) talks about the “network society” suggesting that we are witnessing a “new type of economy”. A network society can connect to political, social, cultural and economic changes. Due to complex networks, communication technologies and digital information. However, Simon Clarke (1990:75) disagrees with the claim that contemporary consumption and work organization is a post-Fordist revolution as he quotes: “Post-Fordism is not a reality, nor even a coherent vision of future, but mainly an expression of hope that future capitalist development will be the salvation of social democracy", suggesting that post-Fordism is only a hope and a vision that will strengthen social justice. For that matter also “information technology” has a key impact in the development of post-Fordism by enabling globally interconnected organizations, prevalent and elastic systems of financial power, progressively decentralized production along with new types of organizational learning and