Why abolish the distinctions between town and country?

[Dogs On Acid]

Marx admitted the 10 planks of the Manifesto were outdated, and were only relevant for 1848. That we know.

But under one of these 10 planks was the following:

"9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country."

Why would M&E come up with this idea?

[The Jay]

Could it have been to encourage a more diversified environment for people by mixing in the industrial and agricultural work to avoid the growing of an industrial city-class and an agricultural farming-class? That's just speculation but I think that it has something to do with the distribution of tasks among society.

[Luc]

It was appart of eleminating "the idiocy of rural life" (of course back then peasants still existed which was probably what that it refering to :unsure: also even today the more rural parts of some countries are more conservative, no?) or something like that and was apart of solving the housing question irrc. Solving the housing question was probably the main reason and also prbably to eliminate possible antagonism between rural peasantry and urban proletariat

I said "and" and "also" and "possible" "probably" alot becuase I am terrible at typing atm I'm sorry that msut be horribly rambling :(

[Dogs On Acid]

Could it have been to encourage a more diversified environment for people by mixing in the industrial and agricultural work to avoid the growing of an industrial city-class and an agricultural farming-class? That's just speculation but I think that it has something to do with the distribution of tasks among society.

I don't think it would be practical for there to be no distinction, but I do agree that there is far too much as of today.

Villages and Towns are many times left in the dark when it comes to technology, services and transportation.

Should we urbanize rural areas? Yes. Should we create farms in cities? What's the point...

Also let's not forget that this was written at a time when there was no motorized transportation!

The division between town and country is far less damaging to society than back in the 19th century.

[Blake's Baby]

Because 1-living in overcrowded sordid poorly-maintained polluted noisy cities is shit; and 2-living in isolated hidebound cultureless serviceless rural settlements is shit.

Why would anyone want to perpetuate the divisions between them, is what I would ask.

[Dogs On Acid]

Because 1-living in overcrowded sordid poorly-maintained polluted noisy cities is shit; and 2-living in isolated hidebound cultureless serviceless rural settlements is shit.

Why would anyone want to perpetuate the divisions between them, is what I would ask.

Under Communism there is no reason for city or rural life to be shit, because hopefully those problems are inherit to Capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

They are inherent problems in capitalism but they aren't unique to it. Crowded insanitary conditions in cities and the idiocy of isolated rural communities existed in other epochs too.

Under communism there's no reason for a distinction between 'the city' and 'the country' either, so why should we maintain it?

Cities are environmental and social suicide. We need to restructure them because:

1-they're mostly built on really good agricultural land that would be better farmed;
2-they require massive resource use to maintain because sewers, electricity grids, gaspipes, waterpipes, railways and roads are all overstressed because they're overused;
3-they're more susceptible to natural disaster such as floods and earthquakes than dispersed populations, because concentrations of population are more difficult to adequately evacuate and house in temporary shelters - again, overconcentration leads to overstressing the transportation and power networks, etc;
4-large concentrations of people produce too much noise and light pollution which are contributary factors (among other causes to be sure) to a massive increase in mental health disorders in western cities - living like this is quite literally making us insane;
5-green spaces have been shown in countless studies to have a positive effect on children's learning, overall health and specifically the health of the socially underprivileged (children, the elderly, the poor, the sick), crime rates, overall happiness, economic productivity and any number of 'positive' indicators.

Now, I know you're going to argue that crime, poverty and underprivilege won't exist under socialism but that's not the point; the point is that 'greener' cities are a real social good under capitalism, so why on earth would we consider that they wouldn't be under socialism too? Farms in cities? Hell yeah, I want my kids to know where their food comes from thanks, I may even want to help rearing and growing it. I might even do it just for fun. However, I'd be hard-pushed to get a cow up to the attic of my house, as I have no back garden to speak of where I could keep it, and the nearest 'fields' are at least 20 minutes' walk away (and if all my 300,000 neighbours all decided they wanted to keep their cow there, the nearest fields would be 40 minutes' walk away, after I walked past houses for 20 minutes and other people's cows for another 20 minutes).

[hatzel]

Can we all please stop calling country-dwellers idiots?

[Dogs On Acid]

They are inherent problems in capitalism but they aren't unique to it. Crowded insanitary conditions in cities and the idiocy of isolated rural communities existed in other epochs too.

Under communism there's no reason for a distinction between 'the city' and 'the country' either, so why should we maintain it?

Cities are environmental and social suicide. We need to restructure them because:

1-they're mostly built on really good agricultural land that would be better farmed;
2-they require massive resource use to maintain because sewers, electricity grids, gaspipes, waterpipes, railways and roads are all overstressed because they're overused;
3-they're more susceptible to natural disaster such as floods and earthquakes than dispersed populations, because concentrations of population are more difficult to adequately evacuate and house in temporary shelters - again, overconcentration leads to overstressing the transportation and power networks, etc;
4-large concentrations of people produce too much noise and light pollution which are contributary factors (among other causes to be sure) to a massive increase in mental health disorders in western cities - living like this is quite literally making us insane;
5-green spaces have been shown in countless studies to have a positive effect on children's learning, overall health and specifically the health of the socially underprivileged (children, the elderly, the poor, the sick), crime rates, overall happiness, economic productivity and any number of 'positive' indicators.

Now, I know you're going to argue that crime, poverty and underprivilege won't exist under socialism but that's not the point; the point is that 'greener' cities are a real social good under capitalism, so why on earth would we consider that they wouldn't be under socialism too? Farms in cities? Hell yeah, I want my kids to know where their food comes from thanks, I may even want to help rearing and growing it. I might even do it just for fun. However, I'd be hard-pushed to get a cow up to the attic of my house, as I have no back garden to speak of where I could keep it, and the nearest 'fields' are at least 20 minutes' walk away (and if all my 300,000 neighbours all decided they wanted to keep their cow there, the nearest fields would be 40 minutes' walk away, after I walked past houses for 20 minutes and other people's cows for another 20 minutes).

Pig and Chicken farms stink, they aren't suitable to populated areas. I live right next to one, trust me. In fact, anything involving cattle such as grazing and herding are terrible ideas for populated areas, even towns.

[Blake's Baby]

Can we all please stop calling country-dwellers idiots?

Who's calling country dwellers idiotic?

I said rural areas lack cultural amenities and services. Perhaps the rural area you live in has great internet access, rapid transport links, and is awash with theatres, state of the art hospitals, libraries, well-equipped and well-funded schools, sports and leisure facilities, music venues, cinemas, and such like, in which case good luck to you, yes we want to remake the town and country in the manner of wherever Hatzel lives.





Pig and Chicken farms stink, they aren't suitable to populated areas. I live right next to one, trust me. In fact, anything involving cattle such as grazing and herding are terrible ideas for populated areas, even towns.

They aren't suitable for populated areas and yet you live next to one? Are you not people?

I regularly get a bus to work where I go through a succession of small towns and villages to reach another town about 18km away; and yes sometimes it's a bit smelly. Are you now propsing that under socialism, the distinction between town and countrry will be so rigidly enforced that no-one will be able to live less than 1km from a pig, for instance? My whole point is that 'cities' are a crap idea, as is 'the country' - you don't move cows 'into cities' you destroy cities, and at the same time destroy 'the country'. The section of the population that lives in places where services are lacking (because there aren't enough people there to make the 'viable') get their accerss to services improved and those of us us who live in areas where there isn't a tree in a twenty-minute radius get to see some green stuff. That's all good. Do I like the smell of cowshit? Not really. Would I think I lived in a better place if I smelt it sometimes? Yes I would.

[Dogs On Acid]

Who's calling country dwellers idiotic?

I said rural areas lack cultural amenities and services. Perhaps the rural area you live in has great internet access, rapid transport links, and is awash with theatres, state of the art hospitals, libraries, well-equipped and well-funded schools, sports and leisure facilities, music venues, cinemas, and such like, in which case good luck to you, yes we want to remake the town and country in the manner of wherever Hatzel lives.






They aren't suitable for populated areas and yet you live next to one? Are you not people?

I regularly get a bus to work where I go through a succession of small towns and villages to reach another town about 18km away; and yes sometimes it's a bit smelly. Are you now propsing that under socialism, the distinction between town and countrry will be so rigidly enforced that no-one will be able to live less than 1km from a pig, for instance?

I live next to one because it's built illegally next to housing. It considerably lowers one's quality of life when having to put up with that constant smell. And nobody should be forced to live next to one.

These things are not at all suitable for populated areas, especially ones with a much denser population than my village.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, I agree, no one should be forced to live... anywhere. And no chicken-farms should be illegally built where they're not supposed to be. And probably, I also think that where there are chicken farms, they shouldn't be industrial sheds that are poorly-maintained, the chickens are kept in terrible conditions, and overcrowding and lack of care for the (minimal) standards of animal welfare and health and safty regulations that exist even in capitalism are regulaly flouted. As I guess that's what you're talking about.

So, would you enforce a policy that no-one was permitted to live withing a certain distance of agricultural activity? If so, what's the distance?

And the thing about density... I'll say it again (third time now, as you don't seem to be getting this point), cities need to be destroyed and the density that exists in them more evenly distributed across the landscape...

[Dogs On Acid]

OK, I agree, no one should be forced to live... anywhere. And no chicken-farms should be illegally built where they're not supposed to be. And probably, I also think that where there are chicken farms, they shouldn't be industrial sheds that are poorly-maintained, the chickens are kept in terrible conditions, and overcrowding and lack of care for the (minimal) standards of animal welfare and health and safty regulations that exist even in capitalism are regulaly flouted. As I guess that's what you're talking about.

So, would you enforce a policy that no-one was permitted to live withing a certain distance of agricultural activity? If so, what's the distance?

And the thing about density... I'll say it again (third time now, as you don't seem to be getting this point), cities need to be destroyed and the density that exists in them more evenly distributed across the landscape...

I don't believe there should be a min. distance by law, unless we take into account dangerous pollution of water streams. A lot of people in villages of Europe get their water in natural streams, and if they are contaminated by animal farms, then for medical reasons it should be deemed uninhabitable.

Other than that I don't see any point in applying a min. distance, that would be impractical for farmers should they choose to live next to the farm, and other people will naturally avoid it due to smell, which will consequently cause a much lower density of population than average.

After taking this into account, I agree with you, the crowded cities of Capitalism are not only dangerous in relation to infrastructure, but also medically, and the population should be un-densified in urban areas and desified in rural areas.

[Blake's Baby]

Right. That's what the abolition of the distinction between urban and rural is based on - instead of overcrowded cityscapes (bad) and deserted landscapes (bad) we have a more even distribution allowing previously-rural areas to benefit from greater population densities (good) and previous cities to benefit from more greening and lower population densities (good). It's a win-win.

[arilando]

I don't believe there should be a min. distance by law, unless we take into account dangerous pollution of water streams. A lot of people in villages of Europe get their water in natural streams, and if they are contaminated by animal farms, then for medical reasons it should be deemed uninhabitable.

Other than that I don't see any point in applying a min. distance, that would be impractical for farmers should they choose to live next to the farm, and other people will naturally avoid it due to smell, which will consequently cause a much lower density of population than average.

After taking this into account, I agree with you, the crowded cities of Capitalism are not only dangerous in relation to infrastructure, but also medically, and the population should be un-densified in urban areas and desified in rural areas.
Would't that just be modern day suburbs through? And what would you consider the ideal population density?

[Dogs On Acid]

And what would you consider the ideal population density?

That can only be answered under communism itself, and according to the technology under such a society.

[arilando]

That can only be answered under communism itself, and according to the technology under such a society.
What about my other question?

[Anderson]

It is very much relevant and part of the social progress vision of communists.

Material Progress to remove distinction between city and village and

Mental progress to consider all forms of human labor as equal if it's socially necessary

[Dogs On Acid]

What about my other question?

The reorganization of society will probably throw terms like suburbs out the window and create brand new forms of organization. For example, it's geographically more efficient to build an apartment complex and surround it with agricultural land than it is to sprawl thousands of detached houses "suburb style". Suburbs are such a waste of space.

[arilando]

The reorganization of society will probably throw terms like suburbs out the window and create brand new forms of organization. For example, it's geographically more efficient to build an apartment complex and surround it with agricultural land than it is to sprawl thousands of detached houses "suburb style". Suburbs are such a waste of space.
So you would envision small towns surounded by farmland? I dont really think that is abolishing the distinctions between town and country.

[Dogs On Acid]

So you would envision small towns surounded by farmland? I dont really think that is abolishing the distinctions between town and country.

I don't think abolishing all the differences is in any way practical. I said that in my previous posts. What I do see as beneficial is the urbanization of undeveloped countryside and the naturalization of urban areas. This alone will help spread the population.

As of today, there is far too much distinction between country and city, and it should be minimized.

[Kotze]

1. Different places have different natural endowments, like being close to a river or geothermal energy.
2. Some types of industry generate a lot of pollution and noise.
3. Going from A to B in high density usually means going a shorter distance.

Equable distribution of the populace is a fucking stupid idea.

[Dogs On Acid]

1. Different places have different natural endowments, like being close to a river or geothermal energy.
2. Some types of industry generate a lot of pollution and noise.
3. Going from A to B in high density usually means going a shorter distance.

Equable distribution of the populace is a fucking stupid idea.

I don't think M&E were really talking about equitable distribution, but instead about equitable development, hence the town and the country having no differences in access to services and other goods.

Of course calling for a 100% egalitarian relationship across all communes is ridiculous, as is having the same pop. density. But I doubt that's what they meant.

[Blake's Baby]

1. Different places have different natural endowments, like being close to a river or geothermal energy.
2. Some types of industry generate a lot of pollution and noise.
3. Going from A to B in high density usually means going a shorter distance...

Do you advocate equally high densities for all areas then, just so journeys from A to B (whatever they mean in any given context) are likely to be shorter?

If not, what about going from A to B in a low-density area?

How are 'A' and 'B' related anyway?

Is the potential journey time from A to B the only determining factor in settlement geography in a socialist system?

- if so, it needs to be explained better. Do you mean 'commuting' to 'work'? Do you mean transporting raw materials from extraction sites to production sites? Do you mean transporting goods from factories to distribution centres? Dwellings to hospitals?
- if not you need to at least outline what other factors might be (resource use, overloading of services, health and wellbeing of population etc).


...Equable distribution of the populace is a fucking stupid idea.

Which is why no-one has suggested it. Strawman.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marx admitted the 10 planks of the Manifesto were outdated, and were only relevant for 1848. That we know.

But under one of these 10 planks was the following:

"9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country."

Why would M&E come up with this idea?

I think they came up with this concept for two reasons: one being that the nature of towns and rural areas (as we know them) as well as the development of urban cities are the result of the rise of the capitalist system (as well as the capitalists conflicts with other systems like slavery in the Americas or Feudalism in Europe and Asia). So a change in the social relations and class hegemony in society would naturally effect the way we organize our communities.

The second reason, I think, is probably just the horrible conditions of factory towns and industrial cities - particularly at this time. Cities were overcrowded, capitalist production in rural areas was brutal and in much of even the capitalist world, there were still a lot of feudal structures in place in rural areas (hence being "backwards" in their view). In the US factory town labor struggles generally spread into issues of living conditions and corruption in the administration of those towns (or protests about living conditions sometimes led to strike actions in the workplace since the towns were often out-right owned by the company). As far as urban conditions in cities go - this was probably also a common demand of class struggles too - it was even a common concern of the ruling class and petty-bourgeois. People in the Victorian era were obsessed with the poverty and shitty-living conditions of the cities - of course their answer was for workers to adopt "better morals" just like today where liberals offer solutions to education inequality such as "parents need to help their kids with their homework and encourage them more" or solutions to the raging environmental problems caused by capitalist production such as "be smarter consumers, reduce your carbon footprint".

At any rate, this second explanation is more of a hunch as to the motivation behind it. I personally think the concept is sound on the basis of the first point I made about the relationship of the system to urban development. I'm pretty convinced that the end of capitalism and the start of a classless system based on cooperation and true democracy would end the division of the land into crudely drawn production zones where this area is for agriculture and this for logging and so on. That's capitalism marking off and commodifying everything within its reach. I think people working together to produce based on use, would find more of a balence so that being born in one area wouldn't mean that you'll probably have to be a logger or agricultural worker or whatnot.

The modernization issue is probably less of a big deal in places like the US today. It would be an issue for countries still transitioning to a fully integrated capitalist country - so like if there was a revolution in Brazil or India, while the rural areas are much more brought under capitalist relations at this point, it hasn't fully transformed the entire country and so there would be rural areas that would need to be worked with and helped to modernize - just under a cooperative rather than profit-driven model.

So in places like the US I think a modern take on this issue might be to call for an end to agribusiness with the end of capitalism. "Locally grown" is sort of a liberal scam for yuppies, but I think the idea of ending agricultural production where rice grown in the US and then shipped to China or milk is shipped to Mexico from the US even though there's enough capacity milk production ability in Mexico already or that Florida Oranges are shipped to California while California Oranges are shipped somewhere else - is totally rational. It would save us effort and transportation and time to produce for the needs of the local population rather than to just grow tons of corn in one area and breed it to last a long time while we ship it all over. Somethings can't be produced everywhere and seasonal issues and whatnot would mean that some agricultural production would still have to be geographically confined and some products would still need to be shipped great distances, but mostly capitalist food production happens as it does now not because it produces more or better food necessarily (actually often produces poorer food because it is designed to be shipped and sit on shelves for weeks) but because it is more profitable. With profit taken out of the equation, I think there's no doubt that the whole way that cities and rural areas function would totally transform.

[Desperado]

Under communism there's no reason for a distinction between 'the city' and 'the country' either, so why should we maintain it?


Because some enjoy a more densely populated area, others do not. Obviously I agree entirely that cities should be made greener and the country's services improved. But I enjoy living in the quiet country and travelling to the buzz of the city. The point is preference, not homogeneity. I'm sure that the former will mean more of the latter, but not the abolition of distinction.

Also, the countryside is far from "cultureless" in comparison with the city - massive generalisation. Sure, there's more variation in the city, but the cultural pursuits I enjoy (speaking my native language and associated practices) are hard to get in the city.

[Kotze]

Spatial reasoning played little role in Karl's work and that idea of more equable distribution is probably the most stupid thing he ever wrote. We only have this discussion about it because of the personality cult around him. What could the infallible genius have meant by that sentence, which is surely a brilliant sentence, like every sentence by him? As is already said in the first post, he later called the text it appeared in outdated. But what did he know, that anti-marxist?

Because of technological advances, the part of the population needed to work in agriculture has been shrinking. The ecological footprint of suburbs is worse than that of urban areas. People in densely populated areas tend to be less conservative.

The distribution of the population is too spread out.

[robbo203]

Just one or two thoughts on the matter

1) There is the question of the legacy of buildings and infrastucture inherited from capitalism. Here in Spain, for example, there are nearly 4 million empty properties. It would be a scandalous waste not to make use of them but we cannot pick and chose where they are located - they are already built. Ditto millions upon millions of square metres of empty offices, warehouses, shopping complexes etc. Also. when the capitalist money-based economy goes down the pan what exactly do we do with all those posh building that currently house banks for example? Convert them into high quality flat accommodation hopefully.

2) Amongst all the sound building there are still an awful lot of crappy shoddily built housing - like sink estates. I say builldoze the lot providing the residents are agreeable to that in a socialist society and are more than happy to relocate to better houses elsewhere. There is also an awful lot derelict uban land lying idle for speculative reasons. One solution might to bring the countryside into the city in a truly big way . This was what lay behind the Garden City movement started by Ebenezeer Howard in the late 19th century. I think essentially the idea is a sound one

3) On agricultural reform I strongly believe in the idea of a more organic approach to farming and phasing out as far as possible the kind of industrial farming adopted by modern commercial farmers. It s a complete myth to suppose that the latter is more productive. It is not . Study after study has supported the conclusion that in terms of output per hectare small organic farms based on multicropping are significantly more productive - not to mention environmentally sustainable - than large scale monoculture farming. The problem is that in terms of direct labour inputs commerical farming is more productive i.e. in terms of output per farm worker. But the differences is much less when you take into account also the indirect labour needed to produce all that heavy capital equipment. I would favour an intermediate approach using more small scale "appropriate" technology but it would still be more labour intensive and, to an extent, that would imply a movement of sorts back to the land. Many rural communities are in decline with facilities shutting down as a result. A healthy reveral of this trend can thus be seen as a sort of opposite moment to the one I previous referred to - that is it would take the "city" (ie, uban functions) into the countryside mirroring the intrusion of the countryside into the city

So, all in all, I think one could reaonably talk of an overall tendency for the distinction between the city and the countryiside to diminish - bearing in the mind that there are also likely to be counter tendencies to this such as takeover and putting into use, currently miillions of empty properties which are overwhelmingly urban based

[Blake's Baby]

Spatial reasoning played little role in Karl's work and that idea of more equable distribution is probably the most stupid thing he ever wrote. We only have this discussion about it because of the personality cult around him. What could the infallible genius have meant by that sentence, which is surely a brilliant sentence, like every sentence by him? As is already said in the first post, he later called the text it appeared in outdated. But what did he know, that anti-marxist?

Because of technological advances, the part of the population needed to work in agriculture has been shrinking. The ecological footprint of suburbs is worse than that of urban areas. People in densely populated areas tend to be less conservative.

The distribution of the population is too spread out.


Brilliant. Way to go failing to answer any of the questions put to you. Instead, you just insinuate that the rest of us have some sort of fetish about dead Germans. Excellent. That's really a way to enrich the argument.

So, are you going to actually say anything of any worth?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Spatial reasoning played little role in Karl's work and that idea of more equable distribution is probably the most stupid thing he ever wrote. We only have this discussion about it because of the personality cult around him. What could the infallible genius have meant by that sentence, which is surely a brilliant sentence, like every sentence by him? As is already said in the first post, he later called the text it appeared in outdated. But what did he know, that anti-marxist?

Because of technological advances, the part of the population needed to work in agriculture has been shrinking. The ecological footprint of suburbs is worse than that of urban areas. People in densely populated areas tend to be less conservative.

The distribution of the population is too spread out.

I think people are interested in this statement, not because of an "infallible Marx" worship but because the question still has resonance today. The idea of class-urban politics is so out of what is currently possible in the class struggle that I think the ground has been totally ceeded to liberals - leading to pro-development politics (pro-gentrification really) and a working class that doesn't even dream of a different kind of living arrangement.

I've been working on a project about gentrification in Oakland and frankly it's a little disparing how little people think it's even possible for the organization of towns and cities to change. For liberals the problem isn't capitalism, it's inherently "suburban sprawl" or "the nature of city-life" just like the problem of the environment is just the natural result of our inherent greed or whatever. So I am very interested in what comrades have to say on this question and hope that as class consiousness and fight-back grows that this becomes a much more open political question and we can begin to counter liberal development with our own demands and perspective; counter liberal-environmentalism with new class movements against urban environmental racism and rural worker exposure to harmful chemicals and side-effects of capitalist ag production.

Anyway, as for your argument, I think many of the issues you describe are transitory features of capitalism at the moment. Suburbs used to be (and in some places are or are returning) where the lower-end of the working class and the working poor lived while the bourgoise-rich lived in city centers and the super wealthy who didn't need to have daily management of their companies or holding lived off in the middle of nowhere (and this is sometimes the case today but more likely they live in enclaves for the super-rich within a hour drive from a city - like Bill Gates owns a whole neighborhood of upper-end McMansions just so he doesn't have to be bothered by neighbors). But back to the main point, the problem with being "too spread out" isn't an inherent problem of people having more space than an apartment or condo, it's a problem of capitalist production. Cheap land is developed outside of cities - cookie-cutter homes and far from urban areas and services because the land is cheap, the turnover is more profitable, labor costs are lower if you have an assembly line production process of making entire neighborhoods at once. On top of that in the US is the "tax-revolt" and white flight out of the cities where developers made deals with smaller towns outside of major cities for huge tax breaks on development. Of course now the trend has reversed for many US cities and now a new process of redevelopment has begun and many cities now create "zones" within the cities where developers can get around having to add to the tax revenue while building homes for yuppies. This makes cities more unaffordable and workers are pushed into the suburbs. But both problems are due to capitalist logic when it comes to providing housing and living space. There is nothing inherently problematic in living in either smaller communities or larger ones and I think people would find more of a balance if town and urban planning were democratic rather than profit-driven. Again personally, I think people will want to live in sort of clustered communities that have the advantages of being able to decide community issues together in a manageable way, centralized communal services like food, cleaning, entertainment and education, but that are less densely structured than urban conditions for contemporary workers (for years I lived in a one-bedroom house that was converted into a 5 unit appartment - there were toilets in closets and bedrooms included the old laundry room, the old dining room, the old living room and the foyer - the common area where we watched TV was a hallway!). So yes, there would be a desire for people to "spread out" but I think people would do it in a much smarter way because there would be a countervailing desire to centralize services and infrastructure so that we don't need to put in as much labor and effort to meet our needs.

At any rate, also I think it's false to say that technology has made less people needed for agricultural production - it was the capitalist mode of production which primarily motivated this. Without technological changes, in England, the enclosures helped move ag production from a lot of low-producing individual plots of land into cash crops where fewer workers tended to much larger and centralized capitalist farms.

I also think the idea that people in less densely populated areas are somehow inherently more conservative is a bit impressionistic. I think there are advantages in organizing when people are not atomized, but I think class consciousness and the level of class struggle are more important. Often in towns and rural areas it's just that the local petty-bourgeois has much more political dominance and it's harder for agricultural workers to organize and express their interests separate from other classes. But despite this, in the US, it was industrial but rural areas where a lot of the early class struggles began - all the mining company towns, all the factory towns and so on.