The Fordist mass production model is misrepresented by post-Fordist theorists.

Evidence

The Fordist mass production model is, in the first place, misrepresented by theorists of ‘post-Fordism’ — thus, to take the classic instance of the car industry, much equipment is not dedicated and can be reused for different models, and in any case long-term reliance on a single largely unchanging product such as the Ford Model T or the Volkswagen Beetle is quite exceptional; moreover, the field of application of mass production techniques was always primarily limited to the production of complex consumer durables (cars, electrical and electronic goods) and did not embrace basic consumer industries such as clothing and furniture or capital-intensive process industries such as steel and chemicals. — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism, 507

Categorization

• XREF: Directly counters the common Jameson/postmodernist narrativization of Fordism as monolithic — connects to Harvey’s Postmodernity and the critique of production-based periodization. — connects to: The state’s crisis-management role grew in the post-Fordist era rather than shrinking — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 1034; Flexible accumulation coexists with entrenched Fordist production rather than replacing it. — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 1213; Heat dramatizes the shift from Fordist hierarchies to flexible post-Fordist crews — Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No…, 69
• DEFINE: Clarifies what Fordism actually was technically (dedicated vs reusable equipment, scope of application) versus what post-Fordist theory claims it was.

Broader Connections

• The state’s crisis-management role grew in the post-Fordist era rather than shrinking #complicates (0.72) — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity, 1034