A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 7. What would that look like, and why would it fix anything, other than limiting my choices and lightening my wallet? Wouldn't every one be just bored and poor?

 

His life will grow out of the ground like the other lives of the place, and take its place among them. He will be with them - neither ignorant of them, nor indifferent to them, nor against them - and so at last he will grow to be native-born. That is, he must reenter the silence and the darkness, and be born again.

Wendell Berry, A Native Hill.

So we've gone through this and lamented on the state of the world.

We looked at how working for largely local businesses, in an economy in which most were local, would work, in terms of economics.

In other words, if you needed an appliance, and went to Wally's Appliance Store, owned and operated by Wally, rather than Walmart, owned and operated by anonymous corporate shareholders, how would that look?

And we looked at something more radical yet, Agrarianism.

So how does this all tie together, and what difference would it really make?

Let's revisit the definition of Agrarianism.

Given the above, isn't Agrarianism simply agricultural distributism?

Well, no.

Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society

Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.

Agrarianism is agriculture oriented on an up close and personal basis, and as such, it's family oriented, and land ethic oriented.

We also noted that agrarianism as we define it incorporates The Land Ethic, which holds:

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.

The Land Ethic, A Sand County Almanac.  Aldo Leopold.

So what would this mean to society at large, and a distributist society at that?

To start with, it would mean a lot more family farm operations, and no remotely owned and operated ones where the land was held by Bill Gates or the Chinese Communist Party. Combined with Distributism, it would also mean a lot more local processing of agricultural products.  Local packing houses, local flour mills, local bakeries.

It would also mean a society that was focused on local ownership of homes with residents who lived a more local, land ethic focused, lives.

Indeed, the local would matter much more in general.

And with it, humanity.

There would still be the rich and the poor, but not the remote rich and the ignorable poor.

Most people would be in the middle, and most of them, owning their own. They'd be more independent in that sense, and therefore less subject to the whims of remote employers, economic interests, and politicians.

All three major aspects of Catholic Social Teaching, humanity, subsidiarity, and solidarity, coming together.

An agrarian society would be much less focused on "growth", if focused on it at all.  Preservation of agricultural and wild lands would be paramount.  People would derive their social values in part from that, rather than the host of panem et circenses distractions they now do, or at least they could. 

They'd derive their leisure from it as well, and therefore appreciate it more.  If hiking in a local park, or going fishing, or being outdoors in general is what we would do, and we very much would as the big mega entertainment sources of all types are largely corporate in nature, preservation of the wild would be important.  

And this too, combined with what we've noted before, a distributist society and a society that was well-educated, would amount to a radical, and beneficial, reorientation of society.

We won't pretend that such a society would be prefect.  That would be absurd.  Human nature would remain that. All the vices that presently exist, still would, but with no corporate sources to feed them, they'd not grow as prominent.

And we will state that it would cure many of the ills that now confront us.

Such a society would force us to confront our nature and nature itself.  And to do so as a party of a greater community, for our common good.

Which, if we do not end up doing, will destroy us in the end.

Last prior:

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 6. Politics

Directly related:

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 3. Agrarianism.

Finis

Lex Anteinternet: Missing the point: Blog Mirror; Dennis Sun: Biden's Climate Change Actions Will Be & How They Affect Agriculture

Lex Anteinternet: Missing the point: Blog Mirror; Dennis Sun: Biden...: From the Cowboy State Daily: Dennis Sun: Biden's Climate Change Actions Will Be & How They Affect Agriculture The real thing that wi...

Missing the point: Blog Mirror; Dennis Sun: Biden's Climate Change Actions Will Be & How They Affect Agriculture

From the Cowboy State Daily:

Dennis Sun: Biden's Climate Change Actions Will Be & How They Affect Agriculture

The real thing that will affect agriculture, particularly the beef industry, is in failing to attempt to arrest climate change.

I've long been utterly baffled by; 1) grazers failure to get a clue over climate change, and 2) ongoing agricultural admiration for the Republican Party.

More than anyone, those who graze ought to be able to freakin' wake up and notice that the climate ain't what it used to be.  I'll hear ranchers talk about it, but they seem incapable of closing the circle. Gee, it's been warm. Gee, it's been dry. Gee, we have no grass.

D'uh.

But climate change? Nope, not happening.

Now there are some exceptions. The late Pat O'Toole, who married into a Carbon County ranching family, was one.  But by and large ranchers simply refuse to believe that something is happening, even while worrying about what is happening.

Hmmm. . . 

And ironically, practices in the industry which gave it a larger carbon footprint are quite recently  Older ranchers can easily look back on an industry that wasn't diesel powered.

On the GOP, ranchers seem to have a really dedicated belief that the Republican Party protects their ability to do what they want.  In reality, the Democrats have preserved ranch lands themselves. The GOP is more of the development party, which never ends up actually benefitting ranchers.  I'll them complain about this too, but not close the circle.  Why is this oil company in my pasture?  Why are squatters trailers showing up all over.  Why are out of state rich buying this up and not doing anything about it?

Why indeed?

Maybe because of how we vote and whose support we choose to ignore.

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 3. Agrarianism.

And what's this thing about Agrarianism?

I believe that this contest between industrialism and agrarianism now defines the most fundamental human difference, for it divides not just two nearly opposite concepts of agriculture and land use, but also two nearly opposite ways of understanding ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our world.

Wendell Berry.

Given the above, isn't Agrarianism simply agricultural distributism?

Well, no.

Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society

Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.

Agrarianism is agriculture oriented on an up close and personal basis, and as such, it's family oriented, and land ethic oriented.

We have noted before:

Farm Resettlement Agency poster from the Great Depression. The FRA was not a success, by and large.

Agriculture has always been close to the hearts of Distributist and in regards to it they can really be regarded as the close associates of Agrarians. When we read older Agrarian texts, we're basically reading Distributist ones. That's why modern Distributists can be found quoting Thomas Jefferson, who basically lived in a naturally Distributist world, mixed with Mercantilism, and who never heard the word Distributist.

Agriculture, for that part, has remained somewhat in this category anyhow, although in recent decades this has been heavily impacted by various developments that threaten that.  Absentee land ownership has always been a problem that has been there.

In a Distributist economy the US would adopt policies that actually do exist in other Western nations. France, for example, has had a Distributist set of agriculture policies since World War Two and I believe that Germany has as well. Greece also does.  In Germany's case, the road map for a Distributist agricultural sector has been set out in book form at that, in Wilhelm Von Roepke's "Economics of a Free Society", in which he addresses it.

In short, in a Distributist economy those employed farming would own the farms.  Absentee landlords and remote corporate ownership of land would not be allowed.  Indeed, a purse Distributist might take this even further on land ownership, and not allow it for use outside a person use or business entity in general, but that's straying from main topic.  In agriculture, it's pretty clear that's what Distributist would have to advance. So, no more wealthy people from one state buying a land and claiming to be "ranchers" in another.  And no more lawyers or doctors in town claiming that their small hobby farm is a farm.  Farm, or practice law, but don't do both.

This part of this is, we'd note, truly radical.  More on that in a moment.  But what this would do, is to make individual farms more viable economically, but worth considerably less individually.  It would therefore be easier for people to enter agriculture, but it would be much less lucrative to sell out of it in some ways.  And I suspect in a pure Distributist economy regulation in this area would come in to further advance this set of goals.

But Agrarianism goes much further than this.  It retains something that the rest of society has tragically lost, which is that we are inseparably bound to the soil, and inseparably bound to nature.

The fact that we have lost this has been massively corrupting and is massively destructive.  Indeed, it threatens to destroy us.

Not everyone in a modern agrarian economy would be farmers, as some like to either imagine, or criticize. But society would be family farm oriented.  And it would value the land ethic.

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.

The Land Ethic, A Sand County Almanac.  Aldo Leopold.

Realizing that agrarianism is, whether we like it or not, and that we ignore it at our ultimate peril and destruction, is the paramount task of agrarians today.  No one thing every cures all of a society's ills, but a modern agrarian economy would come pretty darned close.

Which presumes not only a well grounded society, but a well-educated society.

We've lost that.

Last prior:

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 2. Distributism

Lex Anteinternet: A Nature Party and a question. Does this comport with nature?

Lex Anteinternet: A Nature Party and a question. Does this comport w...:   

A Nature Party and a question. Does this comport with nature?

 

Altered from imagine done by Di (they-them) - This SVG flag includes elements that have been taken or adapted from this flag:, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=114863039

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.

The Land Ethic, A Sand County Almanac.  Aldo Leopold

I wish there was a political party whose first principal was a question; "does this comport with nature?"

And asked that question, as its first principal, honestly.  Not seeking to ask it in some preconceived of manner in which the answer to the question is known before the question is posed.

And not in a way that always aligns with the questioners personal interest and economics.

One that posed it honestly, and went from there.

Such a party would make nearly every political pundit and national politician today squirm.

Senators who come on Fox News every other week, or on Twitter every week, who are from the State of Extraction would disappear behind the dour looking Mitch McConnell rather than answer the question first, and go on honestly from there.

So would left wing politicians who take to the floor in Big Green Rectangle to proclaim allegiance with "gender care", having undergone "gender care" themselves, without answering this question first.

It'd be a step towards sanity in a major way.

Indeed, the very fact that such a question is not the first posed is responsible, in no small measure, for why American politics are as stupid as they currently are.  The rational middle is gone, with the irrational agenda driven extremes in control.

This is why discussions on economics and production are totally divorced from reality on the right and the left.

And this is why discussions on existential biological issues devolve into anti-scientific diatribes that are linked with ill-informed world views rather than reality.

And this is also why those same issues become attached to extremist whose world view is ground not in science, but in ideologies of all type that are of their own fantastical creations, or those whose fantastical creations match a world the way they wish to see it, causing it to become impossible to debate or discuss any issue, as all issues all end up lashed to the philosophy, rather than the science, and reality.

Primum non nocere, first do no harm, we are told, is the first and most ancient rule of medicine.  Perhaps for politics, that branch of philosophy which is applied in the same way that engineering is applied physics, should consider  An hoc pertinet ad naturam?, does this comport with nature. This should be added be added to philosophy of all types, applied and not, as the first principal.

Related Threads:

We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us