Upon returning to my e-mail from my various child minding tasks, hence the delay in responding, I see that my query to Patrick Bond, >³While there is little doubt that the use of the term fordism is >problematic, both in Harvey's and general usage, I am curious to know >what you find unfortunate about it>³While there is little doubt that the use of the >term fordism is >problematic, both in Harvey's and general usage, I am curious to know >what you find unfortunate about it" has bought several commendably succinct and well thought out responses that I more or less disagree with. In response to these replies I would like to offer my position in respect of the regulation school and the issue of fordism and post-fordism. 1)The Regulation School of political economy is not a fully established monolithic theoretical system but is rather a diverse group of theorists engaged in a continuing research program concerned with two broad substantive issues derived from the traditions of European Marxian historical materialism; i) Firstly a concern with the political economy of capitalism and the anatomy of bourgeois society. ii) Secondly a particular concern with the manner in and through which the expanded reproduction of capitalism is secured, albeit temporarily, in the face of the immanent crisis tendencies of capitalism. The sought of regulation theory which holds my sympathies is that of the parisians, particularly Boyer and Lipietz, and that of Jessop and the British geographers Tickell and Peck. 2) One of the main strengths of the regulation approach to me is that it takes seriously the both the world of the Œinternal relations¹ that determine the dynamic of capitalism, the esoteric and the manner in which they appear Œon the surface¹ to economic agents. The exoteric. Traditionally I feel that much marxian theory fails to give the exoteric its due with the consequence that we are relatively blind to the fact that reproduction of the esoteric only takes place in and through the activity of agents in the representational space of the enchanted or exoteric world. Such a failure would be of no great consequence if there was a relatively stable correspondence between the determinations of the esoteric and their appearance in the exoteric world however this is not the case as; ³The way that they appear, their representational space, provides agents with a degree of freedom in action through which the contradictions of the relations which enclose them can be expressed.²(Lipietz) 3)I think that the approach to reg theory by regulationists themselves is extremely healthy. To quote Aglietta.... concepts are not introduced once and for all at a single level of abstraction. They are transformed by the characteristic interplay which constitutes the passage from the abstract to the concrete and enables the concrete to be absorbed within theory. Theory, for its part, is never final and complete, it is always in the process of development.² As Lipietz cautions the point is not the creation of a monolithic theory or dogma butThe objective then is not the completion of some monolithic theory but the elaboration of concepts with ever greater precision that must then be articulated into increasingly adequate explanations of the real concrete. 4) With Tickell and Peck, and to varying degrees Lipietz and Jessop, I do not see that the crystal ball gazing of the post-fordists is compatible with the central tenets of the regulation method as I understand it. Most of this stuff is pernicious drivel of the worst kind. All soughts of crap has been justified by reference to various non-regulationist variants of fordism/post-fordism and worse still by bastardized variants of the Reg approach. I personally blame the likes of marxism to day for this kind of silliness. Down here in sheep country, ie Australia and New Zealand, some of this has been taken up by the peak union organisations, try reading John Mathews Tools of Change, for a purile techno determinist variant of this debate. I do not believe however that the reg approach necessarily implies or leads to a specific type of politics or practice...... This post is going on way to long so I¹ll stop now. In defence of the length of this post blame my childrens lack of interest in political economy, they¹re who I normally rant to. Regards Bill Cochrane