• rothaine
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    26 days ago

    Huh. You’d think the cotton gin would’ve allowed them to get by with fewer slaves.

    • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      25 days ago

      That would’ve maintained production at the level it already was (and also reduce prices and profits).

      Under capitalism, you can’t just maintain production. You gotta EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND.

        • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          You don’t have to subscribe to Marxian economics for this to be true, though Marx and those who listened to him are the only people who dwell on the topic for long.

          Part #1 of my statement is pretty much self-evident. Part #2 is the very premise of market competition, no?

          • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            25 days ago

            You don’t have to, no, but Marx makes a compelling case and explains it simply, and thoroughly. It’s easy to think that Capitalists can just maintain production, but this doesn’t bear out in reality.

            Additionally, Marx points out what are the necessary consequences of these forces.

            • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              25 days ago

              I agree, but quoting Marx is a little counterproductive when the audience is primarily not socialist and, indeed, might be apprehensive towards the concept due to the Leninist dictatorships and Western corporate propaganda.

              • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                25 days ago

                Lemmy has a very strong leftist base, especially Marxist as the devs are Marxist-Leninists, and there are many progressive liberals who would do well to read theory. I disagree with it being counterproductive to suggest reading Marx.

                • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  25 days ago

                  The tankies over on Lemmygrad and Hexbear (aka the Dessalines and people like him) have very much left (heh) a very sour taste in the mouths of many locals.

                  • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    25 days ago

                    Some Lemmy users are against leftism, sure, but the majority of Lemmy is Leftist leaning at minimum. That’s kind of the entire point of Lemmy’s structure, and the broader culture has morphed around that fact.

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      25 days ago

      That’s communist thinking. In communism, we only produce as many goods as people actually need, and nobody goes without, so demand is always fixed. But in capitalism, there’s always more poor people going without you can sell to, and even if demand is fully met, you can keep producing goods to sell to stores who’ll throw them in the garbage, and you still make money.

      A lot of very bad decisions have been made by people who expect a capitalist economy to work like a communist economy. This is a completely reasonable mistake to make, because human beings are naturally communist. But it’s still important to remember that we don’t live in an economy that matches our natural intuitions. We live in capitalism.

    • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      25 days ago

      The plantation owners sold cotton for a profit, so they were financially incentivized to expand production to increase profit. They could get by making the same profit with fewer slaves, or they could use the same number of slaves to make more profit, and with more profits, they could buy more slaves and make even more profit.

      The entire economy of the south quickly became dependent on the institution, as capital investment solely flowed into slave plantations, while the industrial sectors stagnated. It took the war to change that system, and turn investment towards industry.