• rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You wrote a long comment and I don’t mean to be flippant but I disagree with the premise that industrialization would have somehow starved out slavery. The industrial revolution saw children working in factories, they would have found a way to exploit “free” labor in factories. Every generation thought that technological change would end work as they knew it.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s important to remember that slavery, true chattel slavery, is very economically inefficient both on the part of labor and labor-employer. The point is not that the industrial revolution was leading to a labor-friendly world, only that the material conditions of industrialization rendered one of the worst forms of unfree labor, chattel slavery, obsolete. Other forms, like debt slavery and wage slavery, would, of course, endure.

      But chattel slavery, and American chattel slavery in particular, has a number of unique disadvantages - the disadvantages for the slave are obvious. The disadvantages are subtler to the slaver, but important - the slaver, unlike a market employer, cannot adjust the amount of labor he pays for without dismissing expensive capital (if you will forgive these extremely clinical terms for the buying-and-selling of human beings) - this is an inefficiency. A grotesque one.

      The slaver, unlike the employer in a free labor market, necessarily loses money when a laborer’s efficiency decreases - he has paid not just upkeep, or wages, but also a very high price for the initial capital. When a laborer’s efficiency decreases, insofar as it affects his employment prospects at all, it is the laborer who bears the cost of a reputation of reduced efficiency once dismissed from their job. When a slave’s efficiency decreases, it reduces the price they can be sold for; until then, they are an expense that does not give the returns that a similar wage or upkeep cost would. The question then becomes one of sunk cost - and either decision, selling the capital for a lower price than it is ‘worth’ or maintaining a low-efficiency laborer in the hope of recovering that lost efficiency in some manner, is economically damaging.

      These things are bearable for the slaver in an agrarian economy, but in a high-tempo industrialized economy, they render chattel slavery noncompetitive with free labor. Input and output changes too fast, market conditions demand flexibility, which chattel slavery, as mentioned, lacks; the slaver is at a perpetual disadvantage in an industrialized system compared to the less-severe exploitation of an employer.

      And all of this, of course, sidesteps the very severe moral implications of chattel slavery. I don’t mean to dismiss those, only outline why it’s not absurd that industrialization and the decline of chattel slavery worldwide were not coincidentally timed - one very much springs from the other.

      • militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Your argument leaves out something that strikes me as important. That many slavers considered slavery a morally right thing to do. Slaves were considered livestock at the time. The argument to abolish slavery, to the slavers, amounted to freeing the cows. Slavery was wildly profitable not only for those who benefitted from their labor, but also the buying and selling of slaves. They went to war to keep slaves, period. There was no natural end, except by force.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Again, my point isn’t that the slavers would be convinced. It’s that they would be politically and economically marginalized by the progress of industry, as they had been elsewhere in the country, and elsewhere in the world, at the time, until they had no power to resist abolition.

          The war was absolutely over slavery, and it can be argued that the cultural attachment of the South to racial chattel slavery meant things were always going to boil to a head - the intermittent outbursts of violence against ‘Yankee’ industry in the South being a prime example of the kind of radical agrarianism that could have prevented development of the South into an industrial society that would reject slavery - but the base idea was not absurd. Slavery had met a natural end elsewhere by the mechanisms described. Whether it is moral to attempt to ‘wait it out’ like that is a different conversation entirely, of course - my point is just that industrialization kills chattel slavery, and it was not strange for moderate abolitionists to see and latch onto that.

          • militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            You seem to want to push this narrative that leaving slavery alone would have led to a natural conclusion. Are you minimizing slavery? I’ve seen a lot of arguments lately about similar things, such as Hitler wasn’t as bad as Churchill. What’s your agenda?

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              You seem to want to push this narrative that leaving slavery alone would have led to a natural conclusion.

              Man, I said numerous times, including in that very fucking comment, that leaving slavery alone in the South would not have necessarily killed it. I outlined why moderate abolitionists believed that it would, and why it’s not an inherently absurd idea. Fuck’s sake.

              • militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                It is absolutely an absurd idea, and any modern “abolitionists” who say otherwise are pushing an agenda. Do you watch conspiracy videos?

      • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        We are talking about different things. Whether the south would have contorted the normal business model to continue to house people in perpetual slavery is a matter of historical speculation. What I’m saying is that the legal framework that allowed people to be free (as opposed to the plantation farming system) required war, or there would have just been the same level of oppression but tied to a machine.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          My point is, though, that that form of labor exploitation is no longer economically viable when tied to mechanized industry. Without any mechanism for preventing free labor from coming into their markets, or destroying free labor/converting it to unfree labor wholesale, chattel slavery is simply uncompetitive, and for all of its other faults, a capitalist market system devours uncompetitive practices.

          • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            There was no point at which the south would have gone “Golly you know, we seem to be farming a whole lot less and industrializing a whole lore more, I guess we should abolish slavery because of that economic change.”

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              The point isn’t that the entrenched slaving elite would have said “Oh gosh gee willikers, I guess it’s time to give up slavery!”, it’s that counter-elites whose power did not rest on slavery, and whose power was often challenged by slavery, would arise, and eradicate slavery in much the same way as it had been eradicated in the North - by the withering of the economic and political pull of slaver elites until they could no longer meaningfully challenge abolitionist control of the legislature - and the same way that it was abolished in most of Europe.

              • militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                The situation in the US was different. Were slaves being used on vast farms harvesting a single cash crop in Europe? Without knowing the full history of slavery in Europe, besides knowing they abolished it before the industrial revolution, I can guess not. There wasn’t as strong of an incentive in favor as there was in southern states, where cotton thrived.

                Slavery will never become redundant, we must fight for abolishment.