Leftist CSA: Nationalized Slaves

USSR embraced the idea that they was the first step toward true communism; the dictatorship of the proletariat, the party served as a vanguard which should lead the proletariat next step down the road and it should deal with counter-revolutionaries with all means possible, yes it were different, but it fit into the narrative and the greater ideology. What you suggest are that CSA set up a socialist regime where the petite-bourgeois own the rural proletariat and its part of the state's ideology. It's like suggest calling USSR for a liberal democracy, it's so obvious and fundamental different from the ideology that it would demand a POD in 1700 at latest.

How did this call fit in that easily into pre-WWI/WWI Russia, where the workers were an urban minority of a mostly-agrarian population? Asking from curiosity as you know more than I do.
 
No I argue against this because it show ignorance of the last 250 year of ideological development of socialism. I don't give shit about the ethical part of the question, I do give shit about this being bad alternative history, taken completely out of historical context and discussed without understanding of evolution of ideologies or what ideologies is and how they work.

Really? Cuz it sounds to me like its OTL you care about it. If it makes you happier, lets all agree that Slave Socialism is some kind of aberration that makes a mockery of true socialism, could only flourish in the hothouse climate of the South, could never receive any support from all the real socialists elsewhere, etc. Fine. Byebye.
 
I guess I wasted several year on university, where I studied politology (plus economy and sociology), because clearly I know nothing about ideologies, and anyone can just define a ideology as whatever they want without any fucking context to their historical development and the greater world.

I totally understand your frustration.

I could certainly see a CSA Socialist Party coming into existence. I could even see it saying 'Let's nationalize all the slaves to serve the people." But the minute it shows up to one of the Socialist Internationals, all the other socialist parties will tell them they are not wanted and to leave. Then they pass resolutions condemning the CSA Socialists as not being social truly socialist since they support oppression of the natural CSA proletariat.

If the CSA somehow became the "beacon" or "vanguard" of leading socialist/marxist/leftist thought or revolution, then perhaps they might convince everyone else in the world that they were correct in their interpretation of radical left wing thought (which is how Stalinism became the de facto far left interpretation of Marxism). But that is unlikely to happen, and practically impossible before the various Socialist Internationals end up defining basic, essential doctrines that "leftists" come to cherish or support which are in direct contradiction with the policies of the CSA Socialists.

What is more likely is that every other leftist party in the world will keep denying these "CSA Socialists" have anything to do with the far left. Certainly, as leftist thought spreads among the colonial population, they will completely reject the notion of CSA Socialism built on enslavement of blacks.

So you have a case of a leftist party not accepted by any other leftist party in the world. Politicians, academics, intelligentsia, etc. will probably accept that the CSA Socialists have taken much of their ideology from traditional leftist groups, but will likely view it as some kind of bizarre aberration.

What is even more bizarre is that CSA Socialists will keep calling themselves left wing after being completely rejected by every other left wing group. And at some point you will have, however small, a true doctrinaire CSA Socialist group who defines any form of slavery as being against Marxism/socialism/whatever.

This isn't to say that the original poster could be incorrect. I only pointed out that if it did happen, it would be more likely considered a kind of fascism than leftism. Certainly, such a regime would seem to have much more ideological similarity with German National Socialism than International Communism. Of course, if these CSA Socialists also insist on keeping some real form of democratic rule among whites, then it would be even more bizarre and intellectually isolated in the world. Even if not considered part of the far right, there would be so many asterisks around the use of the term "left" in describing the CSA Socialists the footnotes are likely to fill an entire encyclopedia.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
How did this call fit in that easily into pre-WWI/WWI Russia, where the workers were an urban minority of a mostly-agrarian population? Asking from curiosity as you know more than I do.

Lenin argued, rather than wait for capitalism to reach it final phrase (with the disappearance of the petite-bourgeoise), where it would collapse and give way to a socialist revolution, the communist party would serve to force the necessary industrialisation on the Russian state, so that the final state of socialism could develop (in which the party and state would dissolve itself and be replaced with a perfect state of anarchism).
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I totally understand your frustration.

I could certainly see a CSA Socialist Party coming into existence. I could even see it saying 'Let's nationalize all the slaves to serve the people." But the minute it shows up to one of the Socialist Internationals, all the other socialist parties will tell them they are not wanted and to leave. Then they pass resolutions condemning the CSA Socialists as not being social truly socialist since they support oppression of the natural CSA proletariat.

If the CSA somehow became the "beacon" or "vanguard" of leading socialist/marxist/leftist thought or revolution, then perhaps they might convince everyone else in the world that they were correct in their interpretation of radical left wing thought (which is how Stalinism became the de facto far left interpretation of Marxism). But that is unlikely to happen, and practically impossible before the various Socialist Internationals end up defining basic, essential doctrines that "leftists" come to cherish or support which are in direct contradiction with the policies of the CSA Socialists.

What is more likely is that every other leftist party in the world will keep denying these "CSA Socialists" have anything to do with the far left. Certainly, as leftist thought spreads among the colonial population, they will completely reject the notion of CSA Socialism built on enslavement of blacks.

So you have a case of a leftist party not accepted by any other leftist party in the world. Politicians, academics, intelligentsia, etc. will probably accept that the CSA Socialists have taken much of their ideology from traditional leftist groups, but will likely view it as some kind of bizarre aberration.

What is even more bizarre is that CSA Socialists will keep calling themselves left wing after being completely rejected by every other left wing group. And at some point you will have, however small, a true doctrinaire CSA Socialist group who defines any form of slavery as being against Marxism/socialism/whatever.

This isn't to say that the original poster could be incorrect. I only pointed out that if it did happen, it would be more likely considered a kind of fascism than leftism. Certainly, such a regime would seem to have much more ideological similarity with German National Socialism than International Communism. Of course, if these CSA Socialists also insist on keeping some real form of democratic rule among whites, then it would be even more bizarre and intellectually isolated in the world. Even if not considered part of the far right, there would be so many asterisks around the use of the term "left" in describing the CSA Socialists the footnotes are likely to fill an entire encyclopedia.

Yes your analyse is a realistic treatment of slaveholding "socialist" CSA.
 
While we are angrily arguing about what Socialism is, and how evil and shortsighted we were in not denouncing the Soviet Union as confederacy on steroids mixed with SS :D, I forward again my proposal: Self-determination of the Black Community, of course twisted in such a way that they are basically a source of controlled cheap labour managed in order not to raise economic competition with White workers, through labour passports and barter economy with Black (and maybe Indian too) reserves.

This, justified by the kind of eugenic positivism which was quite in vogue among American upper classes, and even in some socialist circles in South America (Argentina, for instance), mixed maybe with Austromarxism on self-determination of distinct cultural communities; I also see quite a strong Proudhonian taste to this Socialism, in odd hybrid with its Marxist arch-enemy. White civilization, due to a variety of reasons, is more advanced, and need both to protect and advance other cultures in their road towards proletarian revolution. Of course as long as historical forces aren't ready, Black culture will stay agrarian, because that's their natural economic model of production.
Then, when enough Blacks are well trained and educated, they're sent to an hellhole in Africa to become an armed garrison for plundering mineral resources to send back to Richmond, or bought in order to create a reliable cadres' class to rule the Black Autonomous Republics. No segregation, though, even if we will surely see strictly controlled emigration outside the reserves, possiblt cyclical, and we may also see some marriage laws similar to those used in Denmark nowadays.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
While we are angrily arguing about what Socialism is, and how evil and shortsighted we were in not denouncing the Soviet Union as confederacy on steroids mixed with SS :D, I forward again my proposal: Self-determination of the Black Community, of course twisted in such a way that they are basically a source of controlled cheap labour managed in order not to raise economic competition with White workers, through labour passports and barter economy with Black (and maybe Indian too) reserves.

This, justified by the kind of eugenic positivism which was quite in vogue among American upper classes, and even in some socialist circles in South America (Argentina, for instance), mixed maybe with Austromarxism on self-determination of distinct cultural communities; I also see quite a strong Proudhonian taste to this Socialism, in odd hybrid with its Marxist arch-enemy. White civilization, due to a variety of reasons, is more advanced, and need both to protect and advance other cultures in their road towards proletarian revolution. Of course as long as historical forces aren't ready, Black culture will stay agrarian, because that's their natural economic model of production.
Then, when enough Blacks are well trained and educated, they're sent to an hellhole in Africa to become an armed garrison for plundering mineral resources to send back to Richmond, or bought in order to create a reliable cadres' class to rule the Black Autonomous Republics. No segregation, though, even if we will surely see strictly controlled emigration outside the reserves, possiblt cyclical, and we may also see some marriage laws similar to those used in Denmark nowadays.

Interesting idea, but it wouldn't be nationalised slaves, it would just be a mix of apartheit and socialism.
 
Those of you arguing that this would never be considered "true socialism" ought to stop and consider the POD. IIRC, The Communist Manufesto was publish around 1844. The POd required for the Confederacy to survive and thus make this possible must occur no later than the early 1860's. So, the development of Marxist thought only has, at most, 20 years to develop along the lines of our timeline before butterflies are capable of steering the new course.

If the Confederacy is the first society to adopt those basic principles (with racial slavery thrown into the mix), it becomes quite likely that this is merely the first step in a direction of development. It is of course possible that this philosophy will be discredited after the collapse of the CSA (similar to how the collapse of the USSR discredited communism). That does not invalidate anything else I have said.

In short, let's not rain on the author's parade (you have to admit, this is a rather uniquely dystopian idea) by interjecting moral objections or OTL arguments.
 
I totally understand your frustration.

I could certainly see a CSA Socialist Party coming into existence. I could even see it saying 'Let's nationalize all the slaves to serve the people." But the minute it shows up to one of the Socialist Internationals, all the other socialist parties will tell them they are not wanted and to leave. Then they pass resolutions condemning the CSA Socialists as not being social truly socialist since they support oppression of the natural CSA proletariat.

What is more likely is that every other leftist party in the world will keep denying these "CSA Socialists" have anything to do with the far left. Certainly, as leftist thought spreads among the colonial population, they will completely reject the notion of CSA Socialism built on enslavement of blacks.

So you have a case of a leftist party not accepted by any other leftist party in the world. Politicians, academics, intelligentsia, etc. will probably accept that the CSA Socialists have taken much of their ideology from traditional leftist groups, but will likely view it as some kind of bizarre aberration.

What is even more bizarre is that CSA Socialists will keep calling themselves left wing after being completely rejected by every other left wing group. And at some point you will have, however small, a true doctrinaire CSA Socialist group who defines any form of slavery as being against Marxism/socialism/whatever.

This isn't to say that the original poster could be incorrect. I only pointed out that if it did happen, it would be more likely considered a kind of fascism than leftism. Certainly, such a regime would seem to have much more ideological similarity with German National Socialism than International Communism. Of course, if these CSA Socialists also insist on keeping some real form of democratic rule among whites, then it would be even more bizarre and intellectually isolated in the world. Even if not considered part of the far right, there would be so many asterisks around the use of the term "left" in describing the CSA Socialists the footnotes are likely to fill an entire encyclopedia.
I agree with this, but there's still democracy for whites and the movement isn't "let's go conquer the inferior races!", so I didn't call it fascist.
 
Top