emerges out of a
decaying form of capitalism
and which extendscapitalism's life beyond its years. Secondly, the emergence of 'Thatcherism', for all its minor successes, has served only to escalatecapitalism's decay and so bring closer the day when workers must takedemocratic power into their own hands, as capital wanes and consciousregulation of social labour becomes a political necessity. The subjectivefactor now becomes
1.1: THE AMBIGUITIES OF 'FORDISM/POST-FORDISM'
For Stuart Hall, who has written extensively on the topic, "Thatcherism's project can be understood as operating on the ground of longer, deeper,more profound movements of change". These longer deeper, more profound movements turn out to be a loose ensemble of technical changesall and sundry have termed 'Post-Fordism'. Given 'Post-Fordism's'apparent importance for understanding 'Thatcherism', it is essential todefine it. Unfortunately 'Post-Fordism' has evaded all attemptedexplanation. As such it has remained a catch-all phrase for every passingflight of fancy in society in the past 15 years. Hall and most others whoadhere to this ambiguous concept are at least certain about one thing:'Post-Fordism' is no "epochal shift, of the order of the famous transitionfrom feudalism to capitalism"; it is merely another onward and upward phase in the life of capitalism, or, as Hall puts it: the transition "from oneregime of accumulation to another, within capitalism".According to Hall anyone expecting a precise definition of such animportant social category is simply misguided. As Hall would have it, "Thisstand and deliver way of assessing things may itself be the product of anearlier type of totalising logic which is beginning to be superseded. In a permanently transitional age we must expect unevenness, contradictoryoutcomes, disjunctures, delays, contingencies, uncompleted projectsoverlapping emergent ones". One response to this might well be to ask
3 S Hall and M Jaques, New Times, p126, 1990, Lawrence and Wishart4 Ibid. p 127 (emphasis mine).