Leftist CSA: Nationalized Slaves

[Plumber]

For a while I have been wondering, if the CSA somehow become independent with a POD in the 1850s, and around the 19whatevers or so, slavery is starting to die out. Slavers are coming under pressure to free their slaves from everywhere else in the world.

Around this time is when the poor whites in the CSA have elected a socialist (for white people only, of course!) President and Congress in response to them finally realizing that the Slaver Oligarchy has been screwing them all their lives. I could see nationalization being used to cripple enemies of the Administration and these nationalized slaves being used like the forced labor of the fascist and communist countries.

Thoughts?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Ouch. This wouldn't be fun at all.

Pretty original idea though. Perhaps the labor of the slaves is used to produce the resources needed for "socialism for white people."

(Think all the automation the Federation uses in Star Trek so people only need to work if they choose to and otherwise pretty much do what they want.)

 

[Plumber]

Ouch. This wouldn't be fun at all.

Pretty original idea though.

No, it would not.
Thank you though , although I should probably be thinking of more benevolent AH twists. Ah well, dystopia is rather interesting, no?

I could imagine this eventually turning on the governing party since the slaves might take away poor white jobs. A planter government could use the slaves as an instrument of class warfare this way!

 

[yourworstnightmare]

No. No. No.
In Soviet Confederacy slaves own YOU!!!

 

[La Grande Asperge]

Perhaps in Confederate socialism, it would be illegal for capital concerns (if they were even private and not nationalized) to own slaves or employ freedmen. Instead slaves would be seized and redistributed.

Whether redistributed on the Soviet/commune/union/syndicate/kibbutz level or on the family level, I imagine that eventually without a concerted effort towards a slave exchange program, the gene pool in the enslaved population would get overbred.

But in general, I think that the initial promise of such a regime would be that every family would have a slave. How feasible that is statistically, I don't know.

Anyway, as long as they are slaves and not being used by planters-turned-industrialists in the factories, they're not going to be taking jobs. That is, if they are owned by the laborers instead of the capitalists - the capitalist would pay a wage to the laborer for the work done by his slave.

However the whole thing would be a horrible snafu, not even from a human rights perspective alone, given that in order to maximize their profit margin lazy Confederates would overwork and underfeed their slave to death; and in general coordinating marriages via slave exchanges/slavemeets and the distribution of the offspring of marriages between slaves belonging to two different Confederates would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Of course, going communist rather than council socialist, the state might just seize the slaves and use them as a slave labor force in order to finance a guaranteed income for Confederate citizens.

But in such a society, doubtless central planning would cause famines and even just rumours of federal slaves being fed in the labor camps while confederates starve and burn useles hyperinflationary guaranteed income money, leading to riots and fascism.

Or the plantation system and its stable method for the handling of enslaved persons might be maintained, and simply ownership and managmeent of the plantations handed over to the Soviets/unions/councils.

The plantation house becomes the Council House, and is a hub of social activities and community organizing and whatnot.

 

[basileus]

The Illinois Nazi Party would subscribe.

 

[Snake Featherston]

So essentially a Confederate Stalinism, then? With the Stalinists using the slaves to foster Five Year Plans? That's.....rather frighteningly possible.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Plantation = Collective Farm
Plantation boss = Party aparatchik / Twenty-five-thousander

Everyone's a slave!

 

[La Grande Asperge]

So essentially a Confederate Stalinism, then? With the Stalinists using the slaves to foster Five Year Plans? That's.....rather frighteningly possible.

While completely nationalized slaves handled by the state to do mass labor are a possibility, that's really what reactionaries and gulags are for. And a more devolved communism/council communism approach is power - I can see All Power To the Soviets being a pretty big deal in the agrarian mindset of the South.

So you might just have small communities based around plantations, with each community having a Council that operates out of the plantation house and manages the slaves for the rest of the community.

The slaves create the community's agricultural product, while the citizens in the community are either industrial workers (in a state socialist society) or craftsmen and shopkeepers (in a left wing Confederacy that's not stamping out the market).

Dark thought - the whole point of orthodox Marxism, as far as I can tell, was to give workers more time off to pursue their own self-selected activities for personal growth while simultaneously pushing production and industrial innovation to their limit in order to reach pure communism where the factories will be automated.

Confederomarxists could see slaver communism as "pure communism", allowing the White proletariat to educate and uplift themselves with (relative to the period) low working hours while the menial work is handled by slaves.

And if the use of slaves in this manner allows White Confederates to more rapidly pursue technical training for modern industrial jobs, then in a dystopian world such a Confederacy might A. be surprisingly strong for a while and B. be seen, with a thriving technical and industrial proletariat, as a prime spot for being the spark of World Communism - ala Germany's idealized role in Marxism.

That would certainly turn the image of the agrarian confedreacy on its head, if slavery solved the problem of kulaks and painful agricultural collectivization, and the white Confeds rapidly begin shifting to skilled industrial jobs.

Pretty nightmarish to consider.

 

[Snake Featherston]

While completely nationalized slaves handled by the state to do mass labor are a possibility, that's really what reactionaries and gulags are for. And a more devolved communism/council communism approach is power - I can see All Power To the Soviets being a pretty big deal in the agrarian mindset of the South.

So you might just have small communities based around plantations, with each community having a Council that operates out of the plantation house and manages the slaves for the rest of the community.

The slaves create the community's agricultural product, while the citizens in the community are either industrial workers (in a state socialist society) or craftsmen and shopkeepers (in a left wing Confederacy that's not stamping out the market).

Dark thought - the whole point of orthodox Marxism, as far as I can tell, was to give workers more time off to pursue their own self-selected activities for personal growth while simultaneously pushing production and industrial innovation to their limit in order to reach pure communism where the factories will be automated.

Confederomarxists could see slaver communism as "pure communism", allowing the White proletariat to educate and uplift themselves with (relative to the period) low working hours while the menial work is handled by slaves.

And if the use of slaves in this manner allows White Confederates to more rapidly pursue technical training for modern industrial jobs, then in a dystopian world such a Confederacy might A. be surprisingly strong for a while and B. be seen, with a thriving technical and industrial proletariat, as a prime spot for being the spark of World Communism - ala Germany's idealized role in Marxism.

That would certainly turn the image of the agrarian confedreacy on its head, if slavery solved the problem of kulaks and painful agricultural collectivization, and the white Confeds rapidly begin shifting to skilled industrial jobs.

Pretty nightmarish to consider.

To further the analogy of Tsarist Russia and the CSA here, both would have industrial sectors marginalized in autocratic agrarian political systems where the army is the primary focus of "national" identity, and where the power of the State is geared to protecting a form of agriculture based on unfree labor. In this case a Confederate Stalin has the ability both to collectivize and former plantation laborerers making up his mobile Gulag.

Such a state would almost definitely wind up at war with the USA, particularly if the CS Stalin starts building the army to a modern mechanized force like Joe Stalin did. This'd be as plausible a TL-191-style ideological, murderous CSA as one could get.

 

[Blackfox5]

"Nationalized slaves" isn't so much a feature of Leftism in the CSA as it would be a feature of CSA Fascism if that somehow developed.

For any movement in the CSA to be considered leftist, it would need to be compatible with the theories of movements of the left around the world. World Leftists are unlikely to accept any form of racial slavery.

A much more likely result is that certain aspects of "leftism" becomes thought of as the "norm" and therefore becomes part of the right as well (like how a basic social safety net is now supported by everyone and is not really a "left" issue even though the size and scope of benefits might be). In this case, a form of "slave socialism" might develop on the right (probably the fringe right).

Fascism happens in places when the traditional aristocratic right loses its credibility. So in this case, we would probably need the CSA to lose a war, suffer an economic catastrophe, or something else that discredits the existing right wing government, cause a major left wing threat which produces a new response that can reassemble the old right coalition in a new form.

For example, the right wing government in the CSA falls. Say a very strong belief in aristocratic democracy often at odds with Jacksonian democracy. Much hay is made about the former aristaocrat leaders slaveholding benefiting only them and not the common white man. In the chaos that follows, a radical form of black liberation joined with Communism happens which scares the living hell out of all the white people. Rather than supporting the old aristocratic democratic traditions of the deep South, support for slavery is revived by aligning it to providing benefits to all whites and not just a plantation elite.

 

[Snake Featherston]

"Nationalized slaves" isn't so much a feature of Leftism in the CSA as it would be a feature of CSA Fascism if that somehow developed.

For any movement in the CSA to be considered leftist, it would need to be compatible with the theories of movements of the left around the world. World Leftists are unlikely to accept any form of racial slavery.

A much more likely result is that certain aspects of "leftism" becomes thought of as the "norm" and therefore becomes part of the right as well (like how a basic social safety net is now supported by everyone and is not really a "left" issue even though the size and scope of benefits might be). In this case, a form of "slave socialism" might develop on the right (probably the fringe right).

Fascism happens in places when the traditional aristocratic right loses its credibility. So in this case, we would probably need the CSA to lose a war, suffer an economic catastrophe, or something else that discredits the existing right wing government, cause a major left wing threat which produces a new response that can reassemble the old right coalition in a new form.

For example, the right wing government in the CSA falls. Say a very strong belief in aristocratic democracy often at odds with Jacksonian democracy. Much hay is made about the former aristaocrat leaders slaveholding benefiting only them and not the common white man. In the chaos that follows, a radical form of black liberation joined with Communism happens which scares the living hell out of all the white people. Rather than supporting the old aristocratic democratic traditions of the deep South, support for slavery is revived by aligning it to providing benefits to all whites and not just a plantation elite.

World leftism (at least while Stalin was alive) had little problem accepting a state beholden to murderous rapists like Lavrenti Beria and with a large army and repression-apparatus barely distinct from its major nemesis. I don't think World Leftism, which hardly failed to cheer Stalinism, would be any different with a CS equivalent.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

World leftism (at least while Stalin was alive) had little problem accepting a state beholden to murderous rapists like Lavrenti Beria and with a large army and repression-apparatus barely distinct from its major nemesis. I don't think World Leftism, which hardly failed to cheer Stalinism, would be any different with a CS equivalent.

Stalinism was a 'deviation' for many.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Stalinism was a 'deviation' for many.

More in hindsight, after the Secret Speech than when Stalin was alive and well. The critics during his lifetime, like George Orwell, were rather frowned upon.

 

[Sift Green]

Also, one should remember that when Karl Marx wrote about the American Civil War he expressed.... racial views in line with most other Victorian Era intellectuals.

In fact, he thought communism would only apply to the peoples of Europe, and that the European colonies would remain the same in nature.

 

[Blackfox5]

World leftism (at least while Stalin was alive) had little problem accepting a state beholden to murderous rapists like Lavrenti Beria and with a large army and repression-apparatus barely distinct from its major nemesis. I don't think World Leftism, which hardly failed to cheer Stalinism, would be any different with a CS equivalent.

I'm not saying the Leftists couldn't support horrible maniacs, killers, and oppressors. I am saying that they are unlikely to do so on a racial basis because of how leftist ideology developed (whether Marxist or otherwise).

A system of racial slavery - even if owned by a state - is unlikely to be supported by leftists. A gulag system filled with even more millions of "slaves" (who aren't called that) who are "enemies of the revolution"? Sure, the left could accept that.

The only way I could see leftism overlooking the racial aspects of this form of socialized slavery is if the CSA somehow became the leader of the radical leftist movement, a beacon to "world socialism" like the Soviet Union became. Then various BS arguments somehow overturn a hundred years of leftist thought since the French Revolution to entrench racial slavery as being OK and all right thinking party members adopt the new line of thinking. But even then, I see serious opposition to accepting such an ideology as being of the left. The unique situation of the CSA (no one else has a pool of millions of enslaved blacks to support attempts at socialism in their own country) makes a "leftist CSA" a poor role model. It sounds more like a form of "national socialism" to me, and that is generally considered to be on the right.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Socialists and cie would drop and denunciate the CSA as embarassament as human rights progress and mentality changes in the 20th century...

 

[Snake Featherston]

Also, one should remember that when Karl Marx wrote about the American Civil War he expressed.... racial views in line with most other Victorian Era intellectuals.

In fact, he thought communism would only apply to the peoples of Europe, and that the European colonies would remain the same in nature.

Mao would have made him roll over in his grave then, I reckon. Communism IOTL emerged from Imperial Russia, which had some significant traits in common with an independent CSA. Not many people at the time pointed out the irony of the German Revolution's failure as compared to the success of the Leninist armies.

I'm not saying the Leftists couldn't support horrible maniacs, killers, and oppressors. I am saying that they are unlikely to do so on a racial basis because of how leftist ideology developed (whether Marxist or otherwise).

A system of racial slavery - even if owned by a state - is unlikely to be supported by leftists. A gulag system filled with even more millions of "slaves" (who aren't called that) who are "enemies of the revolution"? Sure, the left could accept that.

The only way I could see leftism overlooking the racial aspects of this form of socialized slavery is if the CSA somehow became the leader of the radical leftist movement, a beacon to "world socialism" like the Soviet Union became. Then various BS arguments somehow overturn a hundred years of leftist thought since the French Revolution to entrench racial slavery as being OK and all right thinking party members adopt the new line of thinking. But even then, I see serious opposition to accepting such an ideology as being of the left. The unique situation of the CSA (no one else has a pool of millions of enslaved blacks to support attempts at socialism in their own country) makes a "leftist CSA" a poor role model. It sounds more like a form of "national socialism" to me, and that is generally considered to be on the right.

Well, the USSR had some degree of racial undertones to its repressions, but that never stopped people from hailing the "Soviet solution to the ethnicity problem." If Leftists accepted the Soviet expulsions of entire ethncities to Kazakhstan, I fail to see why they'll be any less scrupulous about Confederate!Stalinism.

Socialists and cie would drop and denunciate the CSA as embarassament as human rights progress and mentality changes in the 20th century...

Same way they did the USSR, particularly WRT things like Katyn and the Gulag, eh?

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Same way they did the USSR, particularly WRT things like Katyn and the Gulag, eh?

They did, actually. Some commies are in denial, I saw it myself, but democratic left, yes, they where harsh on it. I know lefties.

 

[Snake Featherston]

They did, actually. Some commies are in denial, I saw it myself, but democratic left, yes, they where harsh on it. I know lefties.

There were a great deal of people who minimized the real record of Soviet atrocities during the period the USSR existed. The kind who if doing that for Nazism would have been Holocaust deniers. The same would apply to a Stalinist!CSA, for the same reasons: ideology is a powerful blinker.