from castells

[rise of the network society, ch3, the network enterprise, pg 171:
"A distinguished Japanese economist, Aoki, also emphasizes labor organization as the key to the success of Japanese firms:
'The main difference between the American firm and the Japanese firm may be summarized as follows: the American firm emphasizes efficiency attained through fine specialization and sharp job demarcation, whereas the Japanese firm emphasizes the capability of the workers' group to cope with local emergencies autonomously, which is developed through learning by doing and sharing knowledge on the shopfloor.'

Indeed, some of the most important organizational mechanisms underlying productivity growth in Japanese firms seems to have been overlooked by Western experts of management. Thus, Ikujiro Nonaka, on the basis of his studies of major Japanese companies, has proposed a simple, elegant model to account for the generation of knowledge in the firm. What he labels 'the knowledge-creating company' is based on the organizational interaction between 'explicit knowledge' and 'tacit knowledge' at the source of innovation. He argues that much of the knowledge accumulated in the firm comes from experience, and cannot be communicated by workers under excessively formalized mangement procedures. And yet the sources of innovation multiply when organizations are able to establish bridges to transfer tacit into explicit knowledge, explicit into tacit knowledge, tacit into tacit, and explicit into explicit. By so doing, not only is worker experience communicated and amplified to increase the formal body of knowledge in the company, but also knowledge generated in the outside world can be incorporated into the tacit habits of workers, enabling them to work out their own uses and to improve on the standard procedures. In an economic system where innovation is critical, the organizational ability to increase its sources from all forms of knowledge becomes the foundation of the innovative firm. This organizational process, however, requires the full participation of workers in the innovation process, so that they do not keep their tacit knowledge solely for their own benefit. It also requires stability of the labor force,because only then does it become rational for the individual to transfer his/her knowledge to the company, and for the company to diffuse explicit knowledge among its workers. Thus, this apparently simple mechanism, the dramatic effects of which in enhancing productivity and quality are shown in a number of case studies, in fact engages a profound transformation of management-labor relationships."

so, taking only this segment, what might we create from it? we see here a clear expression of the actual from the virtual, and the strength that comes with encouragement of the event of knowledge transformation that comes from moving the tacit into the explicit. we shouldn't be hasty with this comparison, but it is fairly interesting.
now, under a capitalist firm, especially one without strong labor stability or profit-sharing, etc, this becomes not so much paternalism as a purer form of exploitation of labor. this time, firms don't just seize labor, they seize knowledge, the knowledge of a collectivity of workers, and transform them into a commodity for exchange.
given the nomadic concepts, we cannot see this as, say, spinozist freedom from bondage. this is not quite active. it is, however, "stronger." a more joyful passion. to transform this joyful passion into an authentic action, in spinoza's sense, requires first, locally, a communist organization of the firm in question, and secondly, eventually (because there is much good in training locally as long as the agents are still focused towards deepening change and expanding and enhancing capacities and powers of action) a fully communistic society, in which all firms are communally organized (simply worker owned firms or ESOPs will suffice in the long-run, they take the good from communism and the good from capitalism, i.e. sociality but limited in space for the greater intensity in time). even this could be established incrementally, through preferential trading networks among communistic firms, as is happening already in buenos aires. not extravagantly so, not preference great enough to endanger the firms themselves, but small preferences organized systemically, that show their broader effects after several years of incubation.