THE small back-to-farming movement in parts of America is a sign of health and vitality. But, we also need a back-to-factory movement, a desire among many ordinary people to see more goods made and sold in this country. Factories are beautiful, as inspiring in their own way as farms. I am reminded of these words by the 18th century British painter Joshua Reynolds about the causes of the French Revolution. The French, he said, had given themselves to ornament,

to the splendor of the foliage, to the neglect of the stirring the earth about the roots. They cultivated only those arts which could add splendor to the nation, to the neglect of those which supported it – They neglected Trade & substantial Manufacture…but does it follow that a total revolution is necessary that because we have given ourselves up too much to the ornaments of life, we will now have none at all.

                                                                — Comments —

Bob writes:

What happened to manufacturing is the same thing that happened to agriculture: mechanization and automation. Jobs in both sectors were lost to machines; they were not exported.

While manufacturing continues to be a roughly constant component of GDP, it continues to automate, and manufacturing employment will continue to decline.

The back-to-farming movement is parasitic on modern agriculture and manufacturing. Anyone who lives near Amish communities will know that those communities are highly dependent on their neighbors, even for the tools they use on their farms and for much of their food.

There is no going back.

Laura writes:

There may be no going back to nineteenth century factories, but even modern factories employ people to operate machinery and assemble goods. Japan’s and China’s factories are highly automated but they still employ people.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean about Amish farmers being “parasitic?” Do you mean they don’t pay for the goods or farm products they get from others? I think you mean that they couldn’t survive if not for modern agriculture. But they don’t need to survive purely on their antiquated methods if they can buy from others. If they had no choice  they probably would survive, just as many farmers once did. As is, their farming does contribute to their livelihood. They are not destitute. Near where I live, the Amish pay their hospital bills in cash and the hospital they use is one of the more solvent in the region. Their economy serves their way of life. 

Hurricane Betsy writes:

The modern “back to farming” movement is not exactly as in neolithic times, i.e., dragging a stick through the soil purely with your own muscles, sowing seed you saved from last year’s crop, or through gathering of wild seed. Nor was it meant to be. Today, “back to farming” means rejection of certain portions of the food production & distribution chain and at least an attempt to do as much as one can through the sweat of one’s brow, ie, some personal, hands-on involvement. It does not mean, and should not have to indicate, the total lifestyle of 9,000 years ago.

Even if you grow in your backyard vegetable garden only 10 percent of your food, that is a good start. 

The Amish are dependent (sounds better than parasitic) on modern systems in that they require machinery fashioned from metal from modern mining; they ride in wagons which they may or may not manufacture themselves, and so on; they probably buy salt and pepper and other basics at the grocery store. However, what is needed from the Amish, I think, and similar groups is a gratitude for this “outside” world with its imperfections, and an open acknowledgement of their dependence on it. These semicommunal groups are closer to the land and self-sufficiency but no one, anywhere, is truly independent. Some Amish run manufacturing businesses. 

By the way, there’s a whole slew of these religion-based semi-communal farms (not Amish) where I live, and these folk are an arrogant bunch. You’re one of them or you’re not and they fancy themselves separate and apart from us. 

God willing we don’t have to return to the total neolithic lifestyle, but it is mandatory that we have personal, first hand knowledge of just some aspects of food production. Heaven knows that we are at the opposite extreme now, with, I would guess, 90 percent of the population here in America having not a clue as to the fragility of the food production and distribution system. Therefore, I would say, Bob, that the “going back” you claim cannot happen could be around the corner.

Art writes:

“You can’t turn back the clock” is an old cliché, but it has some truth to it. It is unfortunate that those who utter it don’t fully understand that it can be used to condemn their beliefs as well. If modern industrial peoples cannot reproduce themselves, and their postmodern consumerist successors cannot do so either, then I think it is quite obvious that the future will be ruled by those who are not industrial or consumerist. History hasn’t ended. There are no possible ends of History other than the Heat Death of the universe or the Second Coming of Christ.

A reader writes:

Manufacturing as percentage of GDP is pretty much exactly the same as it ever was, but manufacturing as a percentage of jobs has plummeted, as seen here. The graph that they have if you scroll down a bit is particularly telling.

This seems to fit the automation hypothesis more than the outsourcing everything to China hypothesis.

Please follow and like us: