The current wave of industrial fetishism in the West bears a striking resemblance to the hippie movement of the 1970s. This generation, the first to grow up without direct experience of farm life, romanticized subsistence agriculture, often ignoring its harsh realities. They overlooked the desperate poverty and brutal logic of agrarian life, where families might have to sell off a child due to drought or crop failure, viewing children as assets rather than individuals. This idealized vision of rural life was far removed from the actual experiences of landless peasants.
J.R.R. Tolkien, although not part of the hippie generation, contributed to this agrarian nostalgia through his works like "The Lord of the Rings." His portrayal of hobbits living in comfortable, spacious homes, spending their days reading or smoking pipes, presented a sanitized view of rural life. This vision was shaped by Tolkien's limited exposure to rural life, primarily through family vacation homes, rather than the harsh realities faced by those who worked the land.
A similar phenomenon is occurring today with the nostalgia for the 1950s and the industrial age. The myth of the sole male breadwinner with a factory job is just that—a myth. In reality, most working-class families had both parents working, with women often holding part-time jobs. The 1950s TV shows that perpetuate this myth were aimed at the upper middle class, as only a small percentage of the population owned televisions at the time. These shows featured male leads in upper-middle-class professions like lawyers or advertising executives, further distorting the reality of the era.
Having grown up in Bangladesh and lived in Dhaka during the early stages of industrialization, I witnessed the brutality of the system firsthand, although I was shielded from its worst effects due to my upper-middle-class upbringing. Despite this, I support the Asian industrial revolution, recognizing it as a transition from an extremely brutal and Malthusian world to a less harsh one.
This perspective fuels my distaste for low-income countries in Africa that view manufacturing as a get-rich-quick scheme, seemingly unwilling to make the enormous sacrifices required for such a transition. Similarly, I have little patience for first-world elites who romanticize the industrial age from their air-conditioned offices, seeking to bring back this era to reassert their cultural power or masculinity. Their nostalgia is informed by a sanitized, TV-shaped view of history, far removed from the realities of industrial life.
I feel like I learned ten things per minute reading this. My worldview has been shaken about and dropped on its head just a bit. Thanks so much for writing it.
"We have to dismantle this binary thinking: cities can be both safe and free; public life can be both efficient and democratic. This kind of life exists not only in Tokyo, Seoul, Amsterdam, Zurich."
.
may wish to dispute that it requires a "strongman" to have safe streets - but face facts, you do have to have strong, effective, crime control.
Humans are more important than trees - thus industrialization is a moral imperative. The example you gave of the silly Michigan town that gave up a lithium battery factory over some silly environmental concerns is a prime example of luddism - people hating on technology and refusing to recognize the benefits and absolute moral righteousness of industry. Every battery built is an affirmation of the power of man over nature.
As for workers conditions: history has shown that whenever industrialism shows up, the poorest of the poor vote with their feet and move to work in factories. There’s nothing more pitilessly cruel than the countryside.
In terms of reimaging the American dream, I feel this comment is misunderstanding the American ethos. Internally there is a lot of fight over what the American dream is but the fight will always have an individualist character in nature. That is what the suburban house represents, it is the modern day yeomen farmer which can hope to establish a sphere of independence. This view of independence will look weird to a Confucian society that focuses more on conforming to the whole but should be viewed a limiting. Rather I would argue the cultural (and possibly self selecting genetic trend because of immigration) trend towards individualism will give America more dynamism in the long run. China is too often used a simple heal so I appreciate the nuanced perspective given.
“What's even more concerning is that even these elite intellectuals still lack basic concepts of what "modern urban life" should look like. They may have never truly internalized the daily experience of "stepping out and taking clean, safe subway, walking freely in dense urban neighborhoods." They still view "cities" as dirty, dangerous, anxiety-inducing places, while treating "suburbs" as safe, clean, ideal residential areas.”
In my observation, the histrionics regarding “the city” on the part of the American middle-class is just coded language for “the other.” In my experience, racially-homogenous suburban liberals, who swear they are “progressive” have an incomprehensible and irrational fear of “the city.” But we all know what and who “the city” represents, in their mind.
The current wave of industrial fetishism in the West bears a striking resemblance to the hippie movement of the 1970s. This generation, the first to grow up without direct experience of farm life, romanticized subsistence agriculture, often ignoring its harsh realities. They overlooked the desperate poverty and brutal logic of agrarian life, where families might have to sell off a child due to drought or crop failure, viewing children as assets rather than individuals. This idealized vision of rural life was far removed from the actual experiences of landless peasants.
J.R.R. Tolkien, although not part of the hippie generation, contributed to this agrarian nostalgia through his works like "The Lord of the Rings." His portrayal of hobbits living in comfortable, spacious homes, spending their days reading or smoking pipes, presented a sanitized view of rural life. This vision was shaped by Tolkien's limited exposure to rural life, primarily through family vacation homes, rather than the harsh realities faced by those who worked the land.
A similar phenomenon is occurring today with the nostalgia for the 1950s and the industrial age. The myth of the sole male breadwinner with a factory job is just that—a myth. In reality, most working-class families had both parents working, with women often holding part-time jobs. The 1950s TV shows that perpetuate this myth were aimed at the upper middle class, as only a small percentage of the population owned televisions at the time. These shows featured male leads in upper-middle-class professions like lawyers or advertising executives, further distorting the reality of the era.
Having grown up in Bangladesh and lived in Dhaka during the early stages of industrialization, I witnessed the brutality of the system firsthand, although I was shielded from its worst effects due to my upper-middle-class upbringing. Despite this, I support the Asian industrial revolution, recognizing it as a transition from an extremely brutal and Malthusian world to a less harsh one.
This perspective fuels my distaste for low-income countries in Africa that view manufacturing as a get-rich-quick scheme, seemingly unwilling to make the enormous sacrifices required for such a transition. Similarly, I have little patience for first-world elites who romanticize the industrial age from their air-conditioned offices, seeking to bring back this era to reassert their cultural power or masculinity. Their nostalgia is informed by a sanitized, TV-shaped view of history, far removed from the realities of industrial life.
This must be a cool book club
It really is!
I feel like I learned ten things per minute reading this. My worldview has been shaken about and dropped on its head just a bit. Thanks so much for writing it.
i am glad you learned a lot of things from this post Kent. Which aspect you find most shocking?
"We have to dismantle this binary thinking: cities can be both safe and free; public life can be both efficient and democratic. This kind of life exists not only in Tokyo, Seoul, Amsterdam, Zurich."
.
may wish to dispute that it requires a "strongman" to have safe streets - but face facts, you do have to have strong, effective, crime control.
.
Yes precisely!
Had no idea you hosted CyberPink and American Roulette! Blew my mind hahaha
yes lol! thanks for following and supporting the podcast Leon!
Humans are more important than trees - thus industrialization is a moral imperative. The example you gave of the silly Michigan town that gave up a lithium battery factory over some silly environmental concerns is a prime example of luddism - people hating on technology and refusing to recognize the benefits and absolute moral righteousness of industry. Every battery built is an affirmation of the power of man over nature.
As for workers conditions: history has shown that whenever industrialism shows up, the poorest of the poor vote with their feet and move to work in factories. There’s nothing more pitilessly cruel than the countryside.
In terms of reimaging the American dream, I feel this comment is misunderstanding the American ethos. Internally there is a lot of fight over what the American dream is but the fight will always have an individualist character in nature. That is what the suburban house represents, it is the modern day yeomen farmer which can hope to establish a sphere of independence. This view of independence will look weird to a Confucian society that focuses more on conforming to the whole but should be viewed a limiting. Rather I would argue the cultural (and possibly self selecting genetic trend because of immigration) trend towards individualism will give America more dynamism in the long run. China is too often used a simple heal so I appreciate the nuanced perspective given.
“What's even more concerning is that even these elite intellectuals still lack basic concepts of what "modern urban life" should look like. They may have never truly internalized the daily experience of "stepping out and taking clean, safe subway, walking freely in dense urban neighborhoods." They still view "cities" as dirty, dangerous, anxiety-inducing places, while treating "suburbs" as safe, clean, ideal residential areas.”
In my observation, the histrionics regarding “the city” on the part of the American middle-class is just coded language for “the other.” In my experience, racially-homogenous suburban liberals, who swear they are “progressive” have an incomprehensible and irrational fear of “the city.” But we all know what and who “the city” represents, in their mind.
sounds like a cool community and club, how might I join? I subscribed to concurrent
dope post, learned a lot, subscribed
Thank you Frank!!!