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

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 ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.