/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I think Shay (local trans girl dixiecom cryptid) wrote about that: https://archive.org/details/RedneckRevolution
I haven't actually read this yet but that's what I gathered from people talking about it.
I hope Shay visits again soon.

>>2546842
>Would the agrarian shithole literally dependent on slave labor that was crushed in war by an industrializing North and the army of the proletarians have magically become communist if they won the civil war and fucked off to maintain agrarian relations and economic dependence on the British Empire?
No
Next stupid ass question?

>>2546842
It would have and started tension between the United States and the new C.S.S.A

>>2546882
sad

>>2546842
based

>I hope Shay visits again soon.
I'm pretty sure the anon just got bored after preaching something she wasn't serious about, or just wanted to namefag and get attention, for similar reasons like the monarch-socialist OC avatarfag was doing

>>2546876
>what was the russian communist revolution
>what was the chinese communist revolution
The class tensions are more pronounced in societies where the capitalist class has no means to produce a labour aristocracy.
Than in modernized economies where labour aristocracy and imperialism is enabled

>>2546902
>>2546872
>dixiebolshevik in booru
>"dixiebolshevik"
>"made by dixiebolshevik gang"
>soyjak memes and femboy shota porn
>a pale repeat of a superior old maymay
gay

>>2546903
>What were the Russian and Chinese Revolution
Failures to produce communism as demonstrated by the actual world we live in and not the fantasy version of the 20th Century that exists in the minds of MLs?

And you expected this to come out of a country that would have functionally been a smaller, poorer, weaker, and whiter version of Brazil?

The failure of modern ML internet theory is that it genuinely doesn’t comprehend that Lenin was an internationalist and understood socialism is a product of international proletarian revolution, not a bourgeois modernization project, even if carried out by a socialist party, which was no more realistic in some detached fantasy confederate republic that had slavery for twenty extra years than the actual South that emerged from the actual Civil War that immediately began transitioning toward a manufacturing and then industrial capitalism and which still had the exact relations of extreme poverty and brutal violence towards proletarians as you think would only exist in the hypothetical timeline

The actual real postwar South has always been poorer than the North, had a much more ephemeral and fragile labor aristocracy, and was dependent on the overt, undisguised, brutal exploitation of proletarians in the form of Jim Crow. It did not produce a communist revolution. Despite getting started on proletarianization 20 years earlier than in your fantasy. There you go.

>>2546903
>>2546922
>The socialist south postwar South has always been poorer than the North, but it wasn't >>2546903
ephemeral and fragile labor aristocracy, and was didn't dependent on Jim Crow. It did produce a communist revolution with labor unions. Despite getting started on proletarianization 20 years earlier than in this fantasy. There you go.
:^)

>>2546922
>Failures to produce communism as demonstrated by the actual world we live in and not the fantasy version of the 20th Century that exists in the minds of MLs?
Define failure? Those revolutions opened the next stage of socialism and are by no means failures. That is not even getting into a weakened United States prevents a lot of bourgeois ventures in the 20th century
>And you expected this to come out of a country that would have functionally been a smaller, poorer, weaker, and whiter version of Brazil?
Brazil and the CSA had around the same population at the time. Also was still recovering from the war and being exploited in our time. It absolutely was a possibility just like how thinkers doubted Russia or China could do it.
>The actual real postwar South has always been poorer than the North
The North felt no damage compared to the South during the War.
It didnt produce a revolution in our time because northern yank capitalist and Dixie former slave owners exploited poor whites and blacks against each other to continue the racketeering of the south.Without that dynamic, the South would have been ripe for revolution

>>2546930
> Define failure?
<Points to the entire 20th and 21st Centuries
>Those revolutions opened the next stage of socialism and are by no means failures
Ah I see, so we’re using that special definition of success where we just redefine the lack of success as success
I see
> That is not even getting into a weakened United States prevents a lot of bourgeois ventures in the 20th century
Yea burger hands typed this one
History would be significantly different but probably not in the ways you believe, even considering the fact that the South’s existence as a dependent of the British Empire, specifically its textile industry, isn’t really considered in your alt-history
> Brazil and the CSA had around the same population at the time. Also was still recovering from the war and being exploited in our time. It absolutely was a possibility just like how thinkers doubted Russia or China could do it.
<The country that would functionally be the same as Brazil would turn out differently from Brazil (and be more like these other countries that are part of the capitalist world market reproducing capitalist relations like every other national state does) because uhhhh
> The North felt no damage compared to the South during the War.
This would also be true in the South’s actual win condition, namely that the North ceases their invasion, that’s literally it, the North was functionally unconquerable by the South
> It didnt produce a revolution in our time because northern yank capitalist and Dixie former slave owners exploited poor whites and blacks against each other to continue the racketeering of the south
And the exact same thing wouldn’t happen if the Confederacy successfully exited the union and maintained slavery until maybe the 20th Century because…?

>>2546922
>"erm acually the soviet union wasn't real socialism because irving kristol trots say so, neoliberalism and neoconservatism is how you build communism!"
Sophistry and beyond goalpost, at any rate they were the chiefly revolutionary projects of its eras.
>And you expected this to come out of a country that would have functionally been a smaller, poorer, weaker, and whiter version of Brazil?
All of these factors including its Large white urban and petit-bourgeois labour aristocracy population relying on low cost coton refinement and enssemblement as the backbone of their population complemented by their export economy.
A collapse in exports would cascade into a unprecedented employment and economic crisis and heavy competition between slaveowners and rheir cheap internal periphery and domestic labour.
With the former eventually borrowing their collaboration to foreign capitalists willing to import from them.
A direct competition between the bourgeoise and the proles + petit bourgeoise.
Popularity and elite overproduction led
20th century revolutions
>The actual real postwar South has always been poorer than the North
Whi h would be even more exaltated in the case of a southern victory
>had a much more ephemeral and fragile labor aristocracy, and was dependent on the overt, undisguised, brutal exploitation of proletarians in the form of Jim Crow

And rhis would have been even more exaltated in this scenario.
You are mentioning reasons for which a more fragile psot war indeoendent south would have been more sensitive to a revolution than one with full institutional backing of the northern industrial-capitalist project.

>>2546842
>Would the south have gone communist by the turn of the century? Pressuming the internal class conflict between landowning, slave owning, plantation bourgeoise and white urban workers in manufacturing jobs experiencing malaise as result of the weevil and collapse of plantation economy which released a major low cost labour force.
No, you would just have English speaking Brazil.

>>2546983
Brazil demographic structure was deeply distinct from the south
The south was 66% white freemen, meaning a majority of the population.
While brazil was 33% white, 40% mixed and 20% black
So a majority of the population was already under certain relation of labour that remained after its independence from portugal.
In america the south would have industrialized because it would have an internal periphery and a urban and european industrial core or competition between freemen and blacks (unlikely) as it developed to sustain its 60% population, as opposed to a 30% that could be sustained by a 60-70%

>>2546971
> Sophistry and beyond goalpost, at any rate they were the chiefly revolutionary projects of its eras.
Not sophistry, the “goalpost” is communism not “trying”, completely related to the sort of idiotic mystifications that lead MLs to such retarded hypotheses as “Confederate victory = communism” basically because “then the Great Satan will have been defeated!” presumably because MLs have never read enough Lenin to grasp why the failure to achieve socialism happened long before America became the principle actor in world politics
Notice how this rests in meaningless sentimentalism that tries to shift the terrain of failure itself by implying other failures (whom the ML would obviously never feel inclined to produce apologetics for)
> All of these factors including its Large white urban and petit-bourgeois labour aristocracy population relying on low cost coton refinement and enssemblement as the backbone of their population complemented by their export economy.
> A collapse in exports would cascade into a unprecedented employment and economic crisis and heavy competition between slaveowners and rheir cheap internal periphery and domestic labour.
Ah
So I see you don’t know what actually occurred during the real historical American civil war where the Southern economy’s exports actually did collapse, which Marx discusses extensively in Capital Vol. 1 since it heavily factors into his discussion of the labor struggle throughout the british textile industry
Nice
Another illiterate MLoid going off his fellow internet idiots to discuss something Marx actually encountered but without the precision, accuracy, or analytical capability 😌
> With the former eventually borrowing their collaboration to foreign capitalists willing to import from them.
>A direct competition between the bourgeoise and the proles + petit bourgeoise.
>Popularity and elite overproduction led
20th century revolutions
Had to reread a few times to understand what you were trying to say, but now that I get it, I think this leads us back to the confused sentimentalism of MLs, where the historical outcome of this specific dynamic is usually not even a rhetorically socialist revolution, but even when under the lead of an at least nominal communist party has thus far failed to breach a single barrier past capitalist modernization (which we now know can be overseen by socialist parties…which…should be a logical conclusion if again one reads Marx?)
We keep leading back more or less to a world completely dominated by bourgeois relations of production, because the hypothetical limit of this understanding ends in a real historical failure to transcend capitalism given the exact material conditions you bizarrely see as “necessary” or conducive to socialist revolution; because MLs generally see remedial actions as themselves the strategy and the transition
> You are mentioning reasons for which a more fragile psot war indeoendent south would have been more sensitive to a revolution than one with full institutional backing of the northern industrial-capitalist project.
I do think the South likely would have had some form of national revolution if it somehow won the civil war and didn’t just become an economic appendage of the industrializing North (most likely outcome), but I think MLs generally can’t tell the difference between a national revolution (which ends in sovereignty) and an international proletarian revolution (which ends in communism)

>>2546916
><del>femboy</del> shota
Neither, thems twinks.

>>2547012
twinks shota.

>>2546916
I also forgot to point out: most of it is discord porn on the left side
only the corn one was based

>>2547012
Are you telling me that becoming a redneck will get me a girlfriend with massive tits too?

In the 19th century American south, the plantation farming industry was like the equivalent of modern large-scale corporate megafarming with all the land being owned by just a few extremely wealthy landowners, but instead of using giant diesel-powered machines to plant and harvest crops they used slaves. Slavery created an enormous imbalance of wealth both internally in the states where it was practiced and in the US agricultural economy as a whle. Poor rural farmers in the mountainous regions of Appalachia such as eastern Tennessee struggled to survive because slavery and plantation farming was not profitable there and they could not possibly compete economically with slave plantation states like Mississippi where they were raking in so much money and had so many slaves working the land that the slaves composed the majority of the state population.

>>2547098
Precisely. The yeoman ship that attracted settlers to northernn states was the aspirational american mytheme of land ownership which emerges from the northern industrial economy. Creating thus a major middle class that benefited of labour collaborationoism and status of labour aristocracy with mobility towards middle class positions/petit bourgeoise.
This has a major deproletarizing effect and hithers class condciousness

>>2547108
>>2547098
I continue: whitout a middle class that is at the end of thescale the major consume of luxury commodities and industrial goods productions dissapears.
This leads to proletarization, your country wil become empoverished.
Self employment and land ownership with decay in favour of economic centralization and ultimately increase wage labour.
Land constrain of the agrarian economy would require constant land expansion or consumer expansion, or constantly increase its profit (by cheapening labour) margins break even and not enrer a overproduction crisis.

>>2546988
>The south was 66% white freemen
The South wasn't majority white until the great migration when southern, rural, blacks moved to northern cities. Which would have never had happened if the Confederates won.
>In america the south would have industrialized because
No it wouldn't, in real life southern industrialization didn't really begin until WW1. If the south remained independent it wouldn't have access to Northern capitol and would industrialize much slower, probably not really industrializing until the 1990s. An independent south would be a third world country.