Why did socialism never catch on in the American South? The main reason that the South got completely fucked over before, during, and long after the war with the North was that the Southern agricultural, individualist economy couldn't compete with the production levels of the Northern industrial, capitalist economy. So why is it that Southerners historically seem to be much more geared towards capitalism historically, even though it was the system that ended up rendering their way of life outdated and degraded?
Precisely because they pretty much had to get dragged kicking and screaming into capitalism. They had to adjust to that before anything, let alone go Red.
>>797483
Sharecroppers.
>>797522
Socialism as an ideology emerges after capitalism in general has achieved state power. There was little flow of the ideology into the South because:
Socialism as a specific praxis in the working class only develops when there is a working class. Much sharecropper behaviour was focused on the apparent commercial relationship, not the actual wage labour relationship.
>>797483
It did. Communists, the Wobblies, and others made headway in the South, but the Cold War and violence of America clamped down on much of this and snubbed Leftism in general.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194
>>797483
Race is essentially the "great lie" of American history. Wealthy whites, almost entirely of English and Dutch descent, exploited biological and cultural differences among the majority (who by 1776 was already mostly non-English) to enforce their power.
Anti-miscegenation restrictions swept the 17th century, but only after intermarriage between Scots-Irish indentured servants and Africans became common.
When you believe that a system empowers you by placing you above the blacks, you're less likely to notice that you are also oppressed. Even if you recognize that slavery keeps you poor, the great lie has taught you to prefer it to the alternative.
>>797485
This is also very true. Even capitalism was opposed due to its race-blind nature.
>>797483
Historically communism is not good to farmers and land owners
The state would have possessed their lands and made them into communal farms
Why would they want that?
>>797483
Lack of education is a big one. I would be willing to bet most of the people in the south during the spread of communism in the 19th century had no idea what socialism was
>>797618
First of all, this is in the early to mid 20th century.
Second, farmers and land owners aren't synonymous. Land owners are a problem for farmers and getting rid of land owners is good for them.
Third, the landless farmers and peasantry were large competent of communist parties all over the world.
Fourth, communal farms are highly efficient and satisfying for farmers since they get a share of their labor's product. Communism is historically much better to farmers than feudal lords and capitalist landowners/bosses.
>>797522
He should have said "industrial capitalism." The South was quite fond of free markets and private ownership of capital, but they were chiefly agrarians and had a lot of cultural barriers to industrializing. White Southerners considered doing repetitive labor for someone else in exchange hourly wages to be humiliating, as that was the sort of duty normally given to slaves. In the 19th century White southerners took pride in working for themselves or having others work for them, which created a sense of racial solidarity that superseded class differences.
>>797618
Well it's not like they'd ever seen a socialist society collapsed before, keep in mind this was very early into the days of the ideology's rapid spread.
Besides, it seems to me like a farmer would much rather keep their farm while being under government control than to be forced to abandon entirely so that they could become another number in the masses of cheap labor enjoyed by the factory owners in large cities.
Wasn't the south also capitalist? Using slave labor didn't make it anti-capitalist.
Your also missing out the point thy the antebellum south was pretty big on Jeffersonian democracy, localism, states rights and racialism. The ideas of socialism (racial equality, internationalism, abolition of private property, anti-elitism etc) weren't really going to catch on.
>>797677
>why don't you hate that guy with 2 cars
Probably because his cars isn't fucking with me making my cash.
>>797702
(racial equality, internationalism, abolition of private property, anti-elitism etc)
the fuck?
That's Communism, Socialism is the state working for the citizens.
>>797702
(racial equality, internationalism, abolition of private property
All of that is Marxist thought has nothing to do with economics.
>>797702
>Using slave labor didn't make it anti-capitalist.
Indeed, capitalism transformed its use of slave labor, making it into the especially terrible American form of slavery.
>>797710
>>797714
>>797719
Socialism isn't Marxism, my friend
>>797719
Idiot, you can have distribution of money to citizens with being an imperialist oppressor.
>>797716
>work a job that is meant for teenagers
>support gov't actions that endanger your working status and raise taxes
>cry when you can't sustain yourself economically
>>797747
No, they aren't, socialist means gibs money, that's all.
>>797710
Doesn't that come later? Wouldn't socialism and communism be synonymous in the mid 19th century?
I bought this up because the ideas that underpin socialist economics would have seemed repugnant to southerners at the time. It's no use preaching common ownership or an anti-capitalist ideals when the culture is staunchly individualist and seeped in classical liberalism.
Also there isn't a working class in the south like the north has in which you can organise. Enslaved labor makes up the vast majority of low skilled labor in the south. Illiterate blacks who are largely confined to plantations and are legally banned from holding large meetings without the presents of whites are not really going to be the basis for a workers movement.
>>797747
Socialism means communal worker control of the means of production. None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with that.
>>797759
No, Germany was socialist since prussian times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus
>>797764
no it doesn't, it means distribution of wealth.
Spengler responded to the claim that socialism's rise in Germany had not begun with the Marxist rebellions of 1918 to 1919, but rather in 1914 when Germany waged war, uniting the German nation in a national struggle that he claimed was based on socialistic Prussian characteristics, including creativity, discipline, concern for the greater good, productivity, and self-sacrifice.[2] Spengler claimed that these socialistic Prussian qualities were present across Germany and stated that the merger of German nationalism with this form of socialism while resisting Marxist and internationalist socialism would be in the interests of Germany.[3]
>>797786
According to who? You can pretty clearly see the intent behind 19th century socialist movements, especially the Northeast US and France, that it was about workers controlling the industries they worked in, not distributing the wealth.
>>797797
those were communist agitators not socialists, socialists would ask for higher wages, improved conditions, more responsibilities and duties to the owners, better benefits etc.. but never to usurp the production, someone has to work.
>>797618
Communism was utterly fantastic for farmers during the early years after the Chinese Revolution. It's only after Mao decided to go bonkers that things took a turn for the worse. You could still argue that, even after the horrors of the Great Leap, most farmers were still better off than they were during feudalism.
>>797794
>Spengler
>>797811
uneducated fool, I suppose USSR, Yugoslavia, China, DDR weren't socialist.
When a state makes it its duty to improve the citizens standard of living, it is socialist.
>>797819
>When a state makes it its duty to improve the citizens standard of living, it is socialist.
Unusual definition, but, regardless, capital circulated in an expanded form based on the extraction of surplus value from wage labourers in all those societies.
>>797819
>when a state makes it its duty to improve the citizens standard of living, it is socialist
What is liberalism?
>>797574
>When you believe that a system empowers you by placing you above the blacks, you're less likely to notice that you are also oppressed
I follow you absolutely. But could this analysis not also be applied to nationalism. You feel superior to Russians as a Finn and therefore you're not distracted by the privileges of the upper classes?
>>797841
no state.
>>797845
feel doesn't exist, they are different fact.
>>797814
The Three Bad Years was going to happen regardless of anything anyone would have done as the major cause was flood and drought. The other consequences of the Pest Campaign and the Sino-Soviet Split forcing China to export grain debt exacerbated the famine but Mao did not "go bonkers", and the "horrors" of this time are incredibly overstated. In the end the policy paid off and the communes bounced back with great success.
>>797819
Ofc there are many different interpertarations, it's ridiculous to pretend that socialism somehow is a single coherent movement. It's simply collectivism.
However the most common definition of socialism is actually that the workers control the means of production. Which they didn't do in totalitarian USSR. It was centrally planned, supposedly for the good of the people. Huge difference
>>797819
>uneducated fool, I suppose USSR, Yugoslavia, China, DDR weren't socialist.
But.. every one of those were proponents of antiracism, internationalism, abolition of private property, and and antielitism.
>>797867
because they were COMMUNIST not socialist where all the wealth is to be used for the betterment of the people.
Probably because Yeoman farmers believed in their right to private property.
