Communism-Served Southern Style

If the Confederate States of America had won the American Civil War but then had fallen to a communist coup what would a Communist CSA be like? Bonus if it's still racist and uses old Southern rhethoric and propeganda.
 
hmmmm... how about this?

*Excerpt from A History of the Confederation of American Socialist Republics*

"... and so after what became known as the "Redneck Rebellion" of 1914, the Plantations of the south would be divided up among the poor white citizens of the CSA. All the planters' Slaves, Livestock, and other property were henceforth divided equally amongst the white populous..."

hmmm?
 
Well, the only way to have Communist Racism is to create a nuance to the rhetoric about Inevitable Progress - a subclass for the Black population that is inherently less class-conscious than the poor whites.

That said, you'd have to give up on any latifundia as that's really not part of the Communist thing.
 
Integrating racism with Communism isn't really terribly hard, it was considered science back in the days, and most Communist movements were keen on all things sciency. I think it will be much harder to get the idea of owning means of production in common to jive with the landholding ethos that pervaded much of the South. Maybe if Southron Communism could be built on a more co-op model that allows individuals to retain land that they themselves can farm productively, but things like mechanised farming equipment, ginning shops, curing sheds, dairies, transport and storage facilities etc. are owned by the white community in common and serviced by blacks under the supervision of paid white technicians and overseers. Blacks, being as they are a backward race and incapable of the provident and responsible behaviour that distinguishes New Socialist White Man, are not allowed to hold productive property. Since they are obviously unfit to receive any form of higher education, they will become state sharecroppers on the expropriated estates (that are not redistributed to the agrarian proletariat) and workers in co-op ventures. If they're still slaves, that creates no problems whatsoever, they just become common property and get leased from the co-ops like tractors and harvesters. If they aren't, we'd likely see things like passbooks, apprenticeship indenture contracts and residency requirements apply to them.
 
It doesn't make much sense if you're going to actual integrate communism with racism, even in the Confederacy. The lower class, both black and white, would have more in common fighting together. Take a look at the leader of the left-wing People's Party in Georgia, Tom Watson, for example, who tried to form an alliance of black and white Southerners in the interests of class solidarity...I think if you do have a communist uprising in the South, it's necessarily going to be a colorblind affair.

For example, in the Soviet Union, the uprising was multiracial on all fronts. The Soviets were a lot nicer to the Jews than were the royals they overthrew, after all.
 
It doesn't make much sense if you're going to actual integrate communism with racism, even in the Confederacy. The lower class, both black and white, would have more in common fighting together. Take a look at the leader of the left-wing People's Party in Georgia, Tom Watson, for example, who tried to form an alliance of black and white Southerners in the interests of class solidarity...I think if you do have a communist uprising in the South, it's necessarily going to be a colorblind affair.

For example, in the Soviet Union, the uprising was multiracial on all fronts. The Soviets were a lot nicer to the Jews than were the royals they overthrew, after all.

As for that here's some interesting speculation, if the white capitalists fired a bunch of white workers fighting for unions and instead hired blacks and the resulting strikes caused a revolution wouldn't the resulting revolutionary government be racist.
 
As for that here's some interesting speculation, if the white capitalists fired a bunch of white workers fighting for unions and instead hired blacks and the resulting strikes caused a revolution wouldn't the resulting revolutionary government be racist.

But would this happen in the South? I'm doubting it.
 
But would this happen in the South? I'm doubting it.

With the level of income disparities that would probably result from a white land-owning aristocracy creating a permanent underclass of slaves and tenant farmers, I could see it happening. It wouldn't be industrial communism or Stalinism, rather, I think it would develop into some sort of Maoism.
 
Which isn't saying much. I suppose the people of Central Asia would be a better example.

Yes, I suppose you're right.

Maybe, though, we could see in a communist Confederacy a degree of self-rule for the black population like you saw with the Jewish oblasts in the Soviet Union. That would be an interesting concept, at least.
 
Maybe, though, we could see in a communist Confederacy a degree of self-rule for the black population like you saw with the Jewish oblasts in the Soviet Union. That would be an interesting concept, at least.

That would be pretty cool. Hmm, or what about if they pulled an India/Pakistan?

(Where areas that are Majority-Black join to become their own nation and areas that are Majority-White do the same.)
 
That would be pretty cool. Hmm, or what about if they pulled an India/Pakistan?

(Where areas that are Majority-Black join to become their own nation and areas that are Majority-White do the same.)

Not sure if that would happen, but its a possibility. Segregation plus the old doctrine of 'back to Africa' leads to a small, black state in the South, maybe as a sort of gift in return for black aid in the glorious Redneck Revolution.
 
Which isn't saying much. I suppose the people of Central Asia would be a better example.

That's mostly due to the religious element.

And notably, Tatars, Bashkirs and Buryats were heavily involved on both sides of the Civil War (nationalists vs. communists), not to mention all the Caucasian folk.

The Basmachi are more of an exception than the rule where popular support was heavily anti-red. For all the bad press, the early Soviets had a better minority policy than the Empire in its latter days.
 
Going with the "black and white underclass overthrowing the plantation owners" option, the result might be a union/federation Soviet style with various cultural and administrative functions left on the state level and some federated zones even within the states, though likely more for distinct counties and any Indian territory than as a zone for the African-Americans (as in North Americans). Landholders are put down in the revolt and the land is divided among the people (but administrated by the states, each individually, rather than by the State, making it more Confederate style). Divided among the people meaning you now have many white shareholder bureaucrats overseeing black and disenfranchised white (from their shares, due to political opinions, criminal record, and the broad blacklisting that will occur as the population increases and families branch while the original partitioning can only be stretched so much) workers.

Ok, most shareholders wouldn't be bureaucrats per-se but more like factory floor-managers, supervisers, and old style overseers. The bureaucrats would be employees of the state in question who get their's from the state's shares brought in by the shareholder "shock laborer" overseer caste.

With the original partition, most shareholders would be working fully alongside, with personal pride in their little lump of land, the workers assigned by their home state. But as the worker population increased and the shareholder population remained relatively the same they'd become more corrupt and managerial.
 
Why would the white underclass join up with the blacks? The poor were just as racist as the rich, the whole point of hating the blacks was, for them, to show them that no matter how horribly off they were, they were still white and that that's better than black. A racist communism seems to me much more likely.
 
Any prospects on a leader for the landless masses in the Confederacy? I mean, one might assume butterflies would remove any prospect of leaders we know popping up around the twenties or thirties in the CSA, but supposing butterflies don't mess with some real characters, who are we looking at?

I'm thinking someone like Thomas Watson of Georgia (Who in OTL lead the Populists in the South) maybe turning a little pink himself and leading an 'Redneck Rebellion' before kicking the bucket and turning the new country over to a group of bureaucrats who are unwitted by someone like Comrade Huey Long in the thirties...
 
Top