tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post6046856090171226504..comments2024-01-02T20:31:43.915-06:00Comments on In Medias Res: Back to Bryan (Left Conservatism Returns)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-48468515919030488472007-04-01T21:16:00.000-05:002007-04-01T21:16:00.000-05:00Doug,"Why is this a particularly 'agrarian' insigh...Doug,<BR/><BR/>"Why is this a particularly 'agrarian' insight, though?"<BR/><BR/>Well, one could make the arguments made by Jefferson or John Taylor or other early republican agrarians, and argue that what happens in the cities isn't real "production": only manufacturing that happens in rural environments where the producer is drawing immediately upon landed resources available to him counts, and anything else smacks of dependency. Bryan didn't affirm this, obviously, and to the extent the same general argument about keeping wealth near to where it is generated could be taken up by advocates of unions and workplace democracy, etc., then he would have agreed with it. But the original, Jeffersonian agrarian emphasis upon farming/landowning independence ran deep in his understanding, nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>"Even in 1896, more wealth was being produced in towns and cities than on farms."<BR/><BR/>In absolute terms, yes; the balance of economic productivity in the U.S. passed from rural environments to the city before even the Civil War. Still, it wasn't until 1920 or so that America was clearly a majority urban nation, and well into the twentieth-century, some of the wealthiest on average communities in America were rural ones, because of the value of the land which was still widely owned by farming families.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-78936691144350295592007-03-30T10:14:00.000-05:002007-03-30T10:14:00.000-05:00"their original agrarian insight: that the wealth ..."their original agrarian insight: that the wealth that really matters is one that can be generated and held by the productive arts of a community of working people."<BR/><BR/>Why is this a particularly /agrarian/ insight, though?<BR/><BR/>Even in 1896, more wealth was being produced in towns and cities than on farms.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Doug M.Doug M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14516798854612470306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-91217693438837619602007-03-30T08:23:00.000-05:002007-03-30T08:23:00.000-05:00There is much here to read, and I will be back to ...There is much here to read, and I will be back to read more. I thoroughly enjoyed this essay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-51211839152488234722007-03-29T14:11:00.000-05:002007-03-29T14:11:00.000-05:00Joe, I've responded to you over at The American Sc...Joe, I've responded to you over at The American Scene; look there.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-16373265070369710132007-03-29T13:25:00.000-05:002007-03-29T13:25:00.000-05:00Speaking of William Jennings Bryan, his attempt at...Speaking of William Jennings Bryan, his attempt at "fusionism" of the largely rural Populist movement with the Democrat Party of Southern Dixiecrats and Tammany Hall political patronage machines is about as downright silly when you come to think about it, as the current Republican strategy of trying to unite Wall Street economic interests with Main Street social values.<BR/><BR/>The difference was the cultural divide of the 60's, the "New" Left and the rise of Identity Politics. Republican victories are not victories for Republicans, but defeats for Democrats. That's a big difference, and a reason behind the shallow support of the Republican Party today.<BR/><BR/>The original populists were largely farmers trapped in the crop-lien system that emerged under the gold standard. Their movement was about protecting private property from predatory banking policies, and the lack of competitive markets in government sanctioned monopoly first and foremost, the railways. The basis of their program was not collectivization but "cooperation"...meaning the banding together in voluntary coperatives to negociate pricing of their commodity crops and favorable terms with the railroad monopolies.<BR/><BR/>The failure of the coooperative movement was the refusal of Wall Street to provide them with credit...according to Big Business Tycoons, any form of voluntary cooperation that threatened their monopoly was "socialism". <BR/><BR/>Most of the histories of the populist movement are told from this perspective from the point of view of the oligarchs. I'd discard ANYTHING on populism that comes from the so-called "Conservative" movement. On the other hand, most texts from a LEFTIST point of view are full of cultural bias toward the Populists, where were anti-communist and pro-private property (cooperation), and were Christian traditionalists. Most leftist historians are Jews, and Jews of course, have a historical antipathy toward the rural folk, who they associate with the pograms of Eastern Europe.<BR/><BR/>The best book on the populist movement is Goodwyn's book, the Populist Moment, the short version you can pick up on Amazon for a couple of bucks. <BR/><BR/>Another great book on the adoption of populist rhetoric by the Republican Party and the Conservative Right wing is The Populist Persuasion, by Michael Kazin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com