Skip to main content

How did the agrarians over react about the industrialization of the South?

The Agrarians were fiercely opposed to industrialization, especially in the South, but really just about anywhere. They considered it a grave sin against both man and God to take human beings away from their "natural" stewardship of the land as farmers and make them work in factories and live in cities. They thought that industrialization would destroy arts and culture and reduce human beings to little more than machines, preoccupied with efficiency in production above all else. They viewed industrialization as degrading, dehumanizing, and destructive, and they hearkened back to a "simpler" way of life where people lived off the land.

Of course, this peaceful agrarian past they wanted to go "back" to was largely imaginary, or else limited to a very small portion of the population. The only reason the upper class could live so comfortably in an agrarian economy in the South was the fact that farms were largely operated by millions of workers who made very low wages and were often heavily indebted. Industrialization dramatically raised the standard of living of the entire population and resulted in enormous improvements in health, income, education, and lifespan. Nor does it seem to have undermined arts or culture, though it surely changed them in significant ways.

But the Agrarians were not simply naive; they also made many serious critiques of the existing social and economic system, particular with regard to the rise of corporations and their contribution to vast inequality of income and wealth. They anticipated technological unemployment, though perhaps they over-anticipated it, as automation would not begin to seriously threaten aggregate employment until almost a century later (and many economists believe that the threat is still overblown today). While their "solution" of going back to agrarian society made little sense, many of the problems they wrote about were real and serious.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more