There is no present consensus regarding long-term consequences of rural industrialization on society. Since 1950, smaller rural communities in the South and Southwestern United States have gained in industrialization due to their generally low-wage non-union labor supply and lower tax structure, both attractive to industry seeking greater profits. The aggressive state and promotional leadership in the South along with federal, state, and local subsidies have proven that even very small communities can attract industry if they are eager to do so and prepared enough to deal positively with the mixed social and economic consequences. Positive economic results such as increased per capita income and more people escaping poverty are offset by more dubious social consequences including unimproved community services, psychological readjustments for workers, weakened horizontal community ties, and outside leadership. The solution to the question of a changing rural social structure lies not in unguided rural industrialization but in a purposive set of policy alternatives based on community values and goals, and in locally-designed means of achieving those goals (including the creation of new capital structures to keep capital working and multiplying at the local level). (SB)