What would a socialist confederate army look like?

Why the hell are you on Jow Forums?

Attached: 1505625129123.jpg (600x600, 39K)

One wants to overthrow governments and insert their faggy political ideology, the other wants sovereignty.

One might dare to call it a.... National..... Socialism

Attached: 1510123609163.jpg (1006x1024, 137K)

Let's go to Jow Forums to talk about politics. I just with there was some delicate board for such things.

shut up faggot, he's asking what their military would look like, not their government

Attached: 1558670619941.jpg (720x700, 79K)

Fun fact: most white southerners didn't like slave owners at all, partly since slaves kept other whites out of certain jobs, keeping social mobility very stagnant
Another fun fact: poor southern whites didn't like slaves
Put one and one together: if the confederacy won the war, and were unable to get the economy and reconstruction going, they could have been immediately inundated with a proletarian revolt, bent on removing both ultra rich slave owners and niggers

gay

A gay pride parade

Untrained negro conscripts let by white commissars

Attached: 1553386350914.gif (477x268, 1.06M)

>a system of government that strongly advocates for the right of individual states to determine their own laws

Combined with

>A political philosophy that requires all participants adhere to a single economic and social plan, or face death or the gulag.

I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through...

>shit that would never happen for $100 Jim
>remembers blacks
The only socialists here in dixie are the legitimate niggers who don’t work and are a burden to our region and their people. The other socialists here are transplant yankees.

What would the uniforms look like though? Probably very plain Jane because this region is already poor enough as it is.

Pol Pot but with more overalls

>>>/gsg/
kek
Can anyone explain to me where this meme comes from?

>Socialist Confederacy
>Not some Rome Tier facisism

Attached: 642E537A-5833-4C93-8EF6-7FD2ECA64DC5.jpg (612x408, 67K)

>What would a socialist Confederate army look like?
>Socialist Confederate army look
>Socialist Confederate army
>Socialist Confederate

Poor, you dumb nigger.

check'd

Well, it might not be too different than the actual confederate army. Both socialist states and the confederacy:
>had limited industrialization
>relied on a system of forced labor
>had very little social mobility, with a small aristocratic upper class
>had an agrarian economy, with farming being the primary concern of the country’s government
>made up some BS about freedom and self-determination to justify their objectively unfree system

one could argue that the slavery system they had was socialist. free shitty food, free shitty healthcare, forced separation of families, a culture that rewards ratting your fellows out....
And the situation was not much better for the 90% of whites who had no upwards mobility because it is impossible to compete with free labor.
I like how the CSA made leaving the confederacy unconstitutional

Attached: 1552873117757.jpg (1200x902, 183K)

>Put one and one together: if the confederacy won the war, and were unable to get the economy and reconstruction going, they could have been immediately inundated with a proletarian revolt, bent on removing both ultra rich slave owners and niggers
That's a huge counterfactual fantasy. But your supporting arguments are true. Which is why it was a retarded move to secede. slavery was on the way out. And Abe was a moderate who was willing to let the planters pretend to be lords for another decade or so

one could argue that the slavery system they had was capitalist. people profiting off the sweat of others, commodification going as far as humans, a market system, a culture that rewards ratting your fellows out....
And the situation was not much better for the 90% of whites who had no upwards mobility because it is impossible to compete with free labor.
I don't like like how the CSA made leaving the confederacy unconstitutional

Attached: 1492173404996.jpg (2048x1335, 558K)

>upwards mobility for whites was stagnant in the American South
All of you can recognize that the overwhelming majority of whites did not own slaves in the American South. Yet none of you understand the south as well as you think you do because you are looking at past events while trying to fit modern economic ideals that weren't pioneered until the 1960s.

The majority of the whites that did not own slaves were Yeoman farmers, craftsmen, and in some cases tenant farmers depending on the state or part of it. They wouldn't even be competing with slaves for labor, because the planter class relied on their slaves to work the massive cash crop estates while renting them out as extra labor to smaller farmers for extra cash when needed. You can read about this in 12 Years a Slave in detail. Poor whites could find work in the fields of yeoman farmer, alongside slaves in plantation fields, in whatever cottage industry nearby, or one of the few factories in the south. These whites were actually paid a wage for their work while slaves were just expected to work for nothing unless it was Sunday. If you really wanted to you could stake a claim in some backwater part of the state, move west, or join the military.

In many cases it made more sense, for yeoman farmers especially, to hire whites because paying them x for what labor they did was more cost effective than buying a slave, allotting them some land for a garden and living areas, and having to pay to make sure that their living conditions weren't complete shit because slaves were expensive and farm equipment needs to be in good working order to be effective. There was an old joke that it was better to be a slave than Irish in the American south because the Irish got the jobs that people thought it was abhorrent to make the slaves do, and pay them practically nothing.

>tl;dr there was social mobility, just not in the ways you think

Attached: newmarket.jpg (750x582, 170K)

>The majority of the whites that did not own slaves were Yeoman farmers, craftsmen, and in some cases tenant farmers depending on the state or part of it. They wouldn't even be competing with slaves for labor,
So in other words. no upward mobility.
Moving west to scrape out a living in a sod hut does not constitute upward mobility
And there was a huge problem with craftsmen being undercut by slaves trained in their trade.
A few states had laws prohibiting this, but that just saturated the market for the states that didn't

>socialist confederate
So, would they try to achieve communism by making slaves do all the work?

>So in other words. no upward mobility.
>Moving west to scrape out a living in a sod hut does not constitute upward mobility
>upward mobility isn't upward mobility because I said so
So the goalpost moving has begun, and you don't understand how important western expansion was. It also seems you don't understand how vastly different the mindset of the Average American was then compared to today. Please state your definition of "upward mobility" so we have something to base the discussion on.

>And there was a huge problem with craftsmen being undercut by slaves trained in their trade.
Not as bad as you make it out to be. Those slaves were trained to do those trades to make the plantation more self sufficient in order to cut down costs. In most instances and were generally prioritized to do work on the plantation because they were skilled property. These slaves could contract out to others and be paid, but only with permission form their owner with documentation, and the owner took out a finder's fee. Prices still had to be competitive in order to work.

>A few states had laws prohibiting this, but that just saturated the market for the states that didn't
The Southern economy was far more localized, you're thinking in terms of modern economic scale where everything travels across state lines. Why would a yeoman farmer in Virginia contract across state lines for slave labor that would end up costing him more in shipping when he could go into town or a town over and get the same work done buy a white or free black?

>Please state your definition of "upward mobility" so we have something to base the discussion on.
: the capacity or facility for rising to a higher social or economic position
>Not as bad as you make it out to be. Those slaves were trained to do those trades to make the plantation more self sufficient in order to cut down costs. In most instances and were generally prioritized to do work on the plantation because they were skilled property. These slaves could contract out to others and be paid, but only with permission form their owner with documentation, and the owner took out a finder's fee.
Your first sentence was not supported by anything that followed.
>Prices still had to be competitive in order to work.
They were very competitive. they out competed the regular craftsmen all the time. Sometimes the trained slaves would purchase their freedom and move north. And out-bid contracts there.
>The Southern economy was far more localized, you're thinking in terms of modern economic scale where everything travels across state lines. Why would a yeoman farmer in Virginia contract across state lines for slave labor that would end up costing him more in shipping when he could go into town or a town over and get the same work done buy a white or free black?
Craftsmen traveled all over the country for projects back then. Georgian Revival architecture was not something your local cabinet maker could knock together. And the And if you had a slave trained to be a machinist, silver smith, or a computer, and your state banned sub-contracting slaves, would you say "well, I put all this money into training you, but I don't want to send you over the state line. so go pick cotton"?

>achieve communism by making slaves do all the work
Seems to be a trend. What were gulags if not forced slavery for the state?

>the capacity or facility for rising to a higher social or economic position
So being able to farm land you claim in the west doesn't fall under this definition according to you? That isn't social or economic advancement? Do you not think becoming a land owner isn't a rising of postion?

>Your first sentence was not supported by anything that followed.
Plantations were their own local economies, and that was an explanation as to how they ran. You have not shown

>they out competed the regular craftsmen all the time.
This does not mean they undercut the local economy in such a way that completely eliminated upward mobility like you are making it out to be.

>Sometimes the trained slaves would purchase their freedom and move north. And out-bid contracts there.
The North had it's own issues when it came to labor competition and undercutting of labor with Irish immigration.

>Craftsmen traveled all over the country for projects back then.
They also traveled from country to country, which is how the Hay house in Macon, Ga was built.

>Georgian Revival architecture was not something your local cabinet maker could knock together.
Not everyone was building Georgian Revival architecture, were they?

>And the And if you had a slave trained to be a machinist, silver smith, or a computer, and your state banned sub-contracting slaves, would you say "well, I put all this money into training you, but I don't want to send you over the state line. so go pick cotton"?
Sell them to somebody who needs a slave that is trained as a machinist, silver smith, or computer?