King Gorilla said:But slave labor for the Nazis was expendable, for a typical CSA plantation owner they would represent the bulk of his net work. Consequently, as industrial slaves engage in passive resistance as all slaves are want to do, it would be easier for the slaves to sabotage production and harder for the factory owner to repremand them.
Mr.Bluenote said:Bonds? To the best of my knowledge the Planters never took out international loans, or loans in general, to pay for their slaves, which basically means that the issue of compensation could be kept fairly simple. I never really thought the economics were that difficult. Slavery was run and paid for in a, shall we say, closed domestic economical circle.
Hmm, I think you've used that argument before, Faeelin, but I'd like to see some references. I haven't read anything suggesting that Mr. and Mrs. Johnny Reb wanted a slave enough to go to war for it, or even actually wanted a slave. In a time of urbanisation and mechanization why would people at the time want a slave? It's like asking a modern man/women if they would want a servant or anykind of employee.
Anyway, with an influx of immigrants to the USA, increased centralization and industrialization etc etc., it is possible that Socialism and perhaps even Communism might rear its ugly head in form of some sort of revolution. The northern magnates were generally very unpleasant and not very caring people, the workers conditions - both living and otherwise - in many cases quite horrible and new, dangerous ideas were flowing in from Europe. Without the social workings of the post-ACW periode, the entire idea of the American Dream might not arise, and thus the wokers have no outlet for their pent up frustration. Add to that the situation of the lost civil war and we have a potential powder keg. As I noted before, the political and social ramnifications on the USA of a lost civil war are not to be underestimated. Things will no doubt play out quite differently from OTL!
No! Slaves, and their families, are basically hired for life. Everything is provided for by their "employer"! You hire a field hand for the day, the month, the harvest and let him fend for himself the rest of the time. I can't see mordern industry thrive on slave labour - it's just not economical sense in any way!
Mr.Bluenote said:that the end of slavery was forced upon the CSA (well, it's a kind of social change, I suppose), it was outfaced in other countries due to numerous factors - mostly that it just didn't pay anymore. We Danes like to claim that we outlawed slavery for humanitarian reasons, but basically it did not make any money, and thus it was possible to end slavery. Had it made money, no we way we would have given up slavery that easy!
Faeelin said:Harder to reprimand? What else is a whip for?
Besides, it's slave labor. Much cheaper than anything up north.
Tielhard said:Why do they need a middle class if they have slave artisans?
Earling said:If however you imagine the CSA shall perform more like every contempory nation in the world... then things are alot less rosy for the USA.
Earling said:Migrant workers are going to come to the CSA. It isn't likely to suddenly become a pariah state since it shall still probably be more liberal and easy to live in (theory if not in practice) than many other nations.
. If however you imagine the CSA shall perform more like every contempory nation in the world... then things are alot less rosy for the USA.
are you the SHWI Gemellus? the one with that good mexico TL?
Precisely
Though depending on the era the coups would have had progressive, reactionary or populist motivations.
Hmmm. A progressive coup? I don't think so.
Generally, coups are revolutions from the top. They're elites who, dissatisfied with the compromises of dealing with lower classes or untidy middle or entrepreneurial classes, simply dispense with all that nonsense and declare dictatorship.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a progressive coup. I suspect that some ninny will point to Chile under Pinochet, but the truth of Pinochet's Chile was that the entrepreneurial class and small business classes there were all but wiped out, the middle classes took a fist up the rear, the overall level of poverty skyrocketed, and wealth concentrated dramatically in the hands of an elite which supported Pinochet.
I suppose Mussolini could be argued as a populist takeover. But even there, if you look at the details of who supported the fascists, where there funding came from, and who they supported... well, it was always for the landowners against the peasants.
The notion of an enlightened despot taking over and reforming society is a profoundly compelling one, but not all that common.