What is more true about “Fordism” (which is an Antonio Gramsci term, check out Wikipedia for more) is that it increased the wealth of the world to a point where we stood looking out upon a “land of immeasurable plenty”. Man for the first time in history would be able to truly enjoy the fruits of his labor rather than just eking out a bare existence. Talk about your hope and change! With a little work, leisure time became available to many and poverty and starvation was becoming a thing of the past while the old empires of Europe whose wealth came from the exploitation of “captive” peoples were destined to die. And die they did in World War I, never to recover. And in their death throes they threw up the most evil ideologies ever conceived.
At least, that’s the way I see it. ;-)
The problem with people like Meade is that they think a future (for mankind) can be planned and, of course, they want to do the planning.
He may interpret history differently than I but he has a remarkably clear sight of some of the broad sweeps of that history and how it relates to the present day, IMHO.
Today, we are past “Fordism” as the computer revolution is overtaking the assembly line. What would Gramsci say or, for that matter, what does Meade say? Meade is silent because he doesn’t know, yet he still wants to plan. Telling.
“Liberal” and “progressive” are two of the noblest and most important words in the English dictionary. They describe essential qualities of the American mind and essential values in American politics in a country born in reaction against oligarchy and concentrated autocracy. They sum up in a nutshell what this country is all about.
That should about do it.
I wasn't aware that "Fordism" is a coinage of Gramsci's, and it's interesting that Mead should track it into his new books and essays. It tells us either where he's coming from, or to whom he thinks he ought to direct his argument.