EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

i tried to talk my ex out of an abortion once and she was like fuck you bitch im gonna do it neways and i cried in my friends lap for like two hours about it true story

idgi

Tsargon posted:

babyfinland posted:

Tsargon posted:

babyfinland posted:

Tsargon posted:

also i would like to hear how you justify the idea that free labor benefits from being put into competition with slave labor, as the notion runs so contrary to all accepted thought that itd be novel to hear such an argument

whites and blacks were not competing for jobs

they both produced cotton and the global price of (19th century) cotton was sensitive to southern plantation production, meaning that without slave power the price of cotton would have been higher (as it was after the civil war when the slave system was disrupted) producing benefit for the free labor cotton producer.

that's incredibly simplistic (i.e. incorrect in the final analysis) and doesn't address the fact that whites and blacks did not compete for jobs, a point that your argument hinges on.

there are other points to my argument which you are ignoring (such as the fact of aristocratic control of state houses meaning that there were no public schools in the south and states like louisiana had less than 20 miles of road before reconstruction) and i should like to hear in more detail your argument that slave labor did not adversely effect the wages of free labor beyond that im "incorrect"

im not presenting an argument, im critiquing the idea that blacks and whites competing for jobs as one thats rather crude and divorced from context

futurewidow posted:

idgi

what dont you get?

babyfinland posted:

like how does it make any sense to set off COLONIAL SETTLERS as distinct from another form of imported labor force, and align one with the ruling class and the other with some kind of revolutionary paradigm, ignoring entirely both the indigenous population and the agency of the slave population, and attributing nothing but malicious avarice to the ruling class. thats some sub-par marxothink bruh

well functionally speaking, up until emancipation, the black slave population was 'aligned with the ruling class' in the sense that they formed the basic unit of support for the reproduction of the white aristocrat population. obviously this was not the slaves fault as the whole idea of slavery itself is the denial of agency, agency which surfaced very infrequently in the antebellum south and was frequently met with overwhelming brutality so as to maintain things.

and i would not conflate the white settler population of the antebellum south with any sort of 'revolutionary paradigm', i was forthright earlier in saying that in fact when they were offered the chance to become a part of a 'revolutionary paradigm' through the federal dictatorship of reconstruction they more often than not rejected it, owing to, on their part, a combination of racism, suspicion, and a lack of political organization and education.

the original thrust of the argument was to offer the antebellum south as a useful model of comparison for modern conservative politics, wherein the ostensible and superficial 'Bulwark Of Ultra-Conservatism / White Supremacism', the aristocrats, in actual fact despised the vast majority of the native white population and utilized every opportunity to smash them up. therefore you might say that yes, aristocrats / neo-conservative types are racists, but theyre much less racist / much less 'white' in their political thinking than buchanan types are, who to follow the analogy through are represented in the 19th century by the hill farmer types.

Tsargon posted:

well functionally speaking, up until emancipation, the black slave population was 'aligned with the ruling class' in the sense that they formed the basic unit of support for the reproduction of the white aristocrat population. obviously this was not the slaves fault as the whole idea of slavery itself is the denial of agency, agency which surfaced very infrequently in the antebellum south and was frequently met with overwhelming brutality so as to maintain things.

see this is bullshit. slaves were the very bane of the ruling class from the moment they began to struggle against their forced bondage the new world

Tsargon posted:

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Tsargon posted:

well functionally speaking, up until emancipation, the black slave population was 'aligned with the ruling class' in the sense that they formed the basic unit of support for the reproduction of the white aristocrat population. obviously this was not the slaves fault as the whole idea of slavery itself is the denial of agency, agency which surfaced very infrequently in the antebellum south and was frequently met with overwhelming brutality so as to maintain things.

see this is bullshit. slaves were the very bane of the ruling class from the moment they began to struggle against their forced bondage the new world

being that slave labor supported *literally* the entire ruling class of the south for over a century, i question your usage here of the word 'bane'

both black and white workers supported the ruling class, youre drawing a false distinction here

Tsargon posted:

the original thrust of the argument was to offer the antebellum south as a useful model of comparison for modern conservative politics, wherein the ostensible and superficial 'Bulwark Of Ultra-Conservatism / White Supremacism', the aristocrats, in actual fact despised the vast majority of the native white population and utilized every opportunity to smash them up. therefore you might say that yes, aristocrats / neo-conservative types are racists, but theyre much less racist / much less 'white' in their political thinking than buchanan types are, who to follow the analogy through are represented in the 19th century by the hill farmer types.

thats fair

Tsargon posted:

being that slave labor supported *literally* the entire ruling class of the south for over a century, i question your usage here of the word 'bane'

shut the fuck up you racist shitbird hahah wow.

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Tsargon posted:

being that slave labor supported *literally* the entire ruling class of the south for over a century, i question your usage here of the word 'bane'

shut the fuck up you racist shitbird hahah wow.

if its racist to say that slaves were the most important component of a slave economy then call me racist i suppose

Tsargon posted:

if its racist to say that slaves were the most important component of a slave economy then call me racist i suppose

no it's racist to adopt a crazy white supremacist viewpoint of history and make statements about how white people are somehow worse off bc of slavery like that even matters and to completely ignore the tradition of black radical resistance in some attempt to play up the role of a group of white people you have no real knowledge of that doesnt sound like a high school history texbook or w/e for your own weird racist ass reasons about how you want to portray history

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

but were they worse off there than they would have been in Africa?

i dont know lets make wild assumptions about more hypotheticals that make no sense like what america would be like without slaves and what africa would be like without the slave trade and european imperialism

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

but were they worse off there than they would have been in Africa?

i dont know lets make wild assumptions about more hypotheticals that make no sense like what america would be like without slaves and what africa would be like without the slave trade and european imperialism

may i remind you that earlier you offered the hypothetical that without the slave trade then all white people in north America would have "starved", so lets not throw stones shall we

Tsargon posted:

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

catpee posted:

tsargon literally said slaves were obviously worse off here:
Tsargon posted:
i am not saying, as is sometimes said by other far-rightists, that white people were the TRUE victims under slavery; clearly it is better to be a dirt poor hillman than a plantation slave. but i am saying that the political economy of a plantation society is destructive to every class other than the aristocrats who run it.

you are clearly being intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting his arguments

im not misrepresenting shit im saying that his argument that white 'hillmen' are not better off because of slavery is patently ridiculous

if you can offer a reason for why poor whites were better off because of slavery other than 'they themselves werent slaves' then id be happy to consider it, so far you havent.

Because even disregarding material circumstances, being able to look down on a class of people and having your innate superiority reinforced is psychologically and spiritually rewarding

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

i was referring to the historical fact that all the white people did starve without slaves

When/where?