Note: There’s a citation error in this section: “Forcibly deindustrializing, whether through government regulation or a collective “change of mood” (ibid, p. 28), would mean famine and death for billions — hardly a policy consistent with the pro-life cause to which the authors of Localism are committed.” The ibid suggests that the reference is to Preindustrial Societies, but it’s actually to Localism.
I’m looking forward to part II! I would also love to read what you would propose as an alternative to Localism, whether this be in part two or in a review of Superabundance…
Heard! Superabundance would be a slog, but it might be worth a review. One way or another, I’ll try to put together something positive and m not be satisfied merely with deconstructing localism.
As someone who used to but no longer ascribes to localist distributism, I appreciate this review. The notion that we can just reverse the industrial revolution at this point is pure fantasy, and as you note in your previous comment, would undoubtedly result in famine and disasters of an unforeseeable scale. Compared to this reactionary mindset, I’ve actually long thought that the Marxist program, for all of its faults, is more realistic. While Mark has it track record of catastrophes, in theory is predicated, not upon rejection of industrialization, but the carrying forth of industrialization on a forward trajectory which is taking the inner logic of economic development fermented within capitalism and letting it develop beyond the limits of capitalist social relations themselves. I also think distributism accepts a few different false dichotomies. For example, it is perfectly possible for local economies of wide distribution of property ownership to coexist alongside centralization, state ownership of heavy industries, and central planning. This type of “mixed economy“ is very possible to achieve in a modern industrialized world, and it is in large part what modern-day China has achieved on the basis of Marxist and traditional Chinese economic principles.
A lot to unpack here. I’ll have a more fulsome reply when part two is finished, so as to have my full POV in writing. Thanks for reading — I’m glad you enjoyed!
Note: There’s a citation error in this section: “Forcibly deindustrializing, whether through government regulation or a collective “change of mood” (ibid, p. 28), would mean famine and death for billions — hardly a policy consistent with the pro-life cause to which the authors of Localism are committed.” The ibid suggests that the reference is to Preindustrial Societies, but it’s actually to Localism.
I’m looking forward to part II! I would also love to read what you would propose as an alternative to Localism, whether this be in part two or in a review of Superabundance…
Heard! Superabundance would be a slog, but it might be worth a review. One way or another, I’ll try to put together something positive and m not be satisfied merely with deconstructing localism.
Excellent! There is so much about localism that is just esthetic fetish. And anti-urban backlash. And in total denial of history. You say it well.
Thanks for reading! As it happens, aesthetics comes up a lot in part two — which I’ll try to have out tomorrow or Sunday.
As someone who used to but no longer ascribes to localist distributism, I appreciate this review. The notion that we can just reverse the industrial revolution at this point is pure fantasy, and as you note in your previous comment, would undoubtedly result in famine and disasters of an unforeseeable scale. Compared to this reactionary mindset, I’ve actually long thought that the Marxist program, for all of its faults, is more realistic. While Mark has it track record of catastrophes, in theory is predicated, not upon rejection of industrialization, but the carrying forth of industrialization on a forward trajectory which is taking the inner logic of economic development fermented within capitalism and letting it develop beyond the limits of capitalist social relations themselves. I also think distributism accepts a few different false dichotomies. For example, it is perfectly possible for local economies of wide distribution of property ownership to coexist alongside centralization, state ownership of heavy industries, and central planning. This type of “mixed economy“ is very possible to achieve in a modern industrialized world, and it is in large part what modern-day China has achieved on the basis of Marxist and traditional Chinese economic principles.
A lot to unpack here. I’ll have a more fulsome reply when part two is finished, so as to have my full POV in writing. Thanks for reading — I’m glad you enjoyed!
Your best piece of writing, I think. I'm impatient for part two.
Thank you! It’s in the works!