cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17294985
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln
"I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to! I would to God that such a system prevailed all over the world." - Abraham Lincoln
"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world." - Karl Marx
Party realignment happened, so the current republicans are not really “political descendants” of the party that ended slavery.
Still point taken lol
Republicans didn't end slavery. Slavery was enshrined in the 13th amendment to the constitution by Republicans. They did free black slaves as a punitive fuck you to the Confederate States. But it's not the same thing.
Also there was no realignment. Before civil rights both parties had deeply seeded bigots. Democrats with their Dixiecrats. And Republicans with their fascists. The fascists literaly plotted a Hitler style coup just a few years after his failed. In the early 1930s. Look up the walstreet putsch.
What there was, was a distillation. Democrats got to civil rights first. Winning outsized support from black Americans. And leaving Dixiecrats fleeing the party. Republicans having missed out on being the ones to pass civil rights, took the consolation prize. And for the last 50 years has been the party of bigotry, white grievance, and fascism.
The language and actions of the Radical Republicans in the 1860s and 70s show a sincere desire to abolish slavery in all of its forms. The 'exception' granted in the 13th Amendment was intended to retain punitive measures for criminals rather than reconstruct a form of slavery. It didn't work out as cleanly as was hoped.
If it exists it wasn't ended or abolished. Definitionally. I agree that there were some Republicans that felt that way. Not enough and not all. The fact that they held on to it for punitive reasons only proves my point.
I would argue that forced labor without profit motive or ownership of a person is so far removed from slavery as to not warrant the term. Community service is slavery under that definition (and, in fact, challenges on the basis of the 13th have been [unsuccessfully] leveled against community service), yet I think few of us would view some rich twat getting a hundred hours of community service for a DUI to be slavery in any form, even on a purely technical level.
Labor as punishment is not effective or worth keeping as a tool for ensuring the compliance of a free citizenry by its government, but I also don't think that it is inherently slavery. My point thus is that the 13th Amendment was not meant simply as a punishment, but as a genuine attempt (emphasis on 'attempt') to end slavery as an institution.
Many of our prisons are privately owned. A profit motive is securely attached at this point at least. And I would argue it has been for a long time.
I 100% agree with you that it isn't effective. I just don't partake in the semantics on it. It is slavery. It's called slavery in the amendment. That means it's slavery. Just of a different kind.
Just FYI, a very small percentage of our prisons are privately owned. Something like 20%. However, the percentage of jails that are privately owned is more like 80%
And capitalists profit off of both because phone calls and commissary are monopolostic contracts awarded by the state. Often to corporations who in turn lobby for harsher jail and prison sentences.
Plus, prisons and jails don't build themselves. And often the medical services are outsourced to corporations, rather than being county or state employees.
Incarceration is big business. It doesn't really matter who owns the prison or jail.
20% is still 100% too many, and it doesn't matter if the prison is publicly or privately owned, or if the labor is profitable. Forced labor while in another's custody is slavery. It doesn't matter if it's the government that owns you. It doesn't matter if they are losing money on your labor. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of a crime. The definition of "slavery" is very straightforward.
Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing in favor of slavery. There are no acceptable defenses for slavery.
Take a step back. We're talking about prison labor. That labor is worth capital that the laborer will see none of. They are in state custody, potentially for the rest of their life.
There is a profit motive. The prisons make money selling slave labor. Corporations make money sourcing cheap labor from prisons. Many of those prisons are privately owned for-profit businesses.
The laborer is owned by the state and is not free to leave or cease laboring, and and is subject to other forms of cruelty including psychological torture if they refuse.
How you couldn't conclude that this laborer is a slave is beyond me. "It's okay if you're not profiting off of it" is a terrible rational for stripping a person of their rights completely and using them like cattle with the threat of torture as a punishment for disobedience. Furthermore, it's not true, prison labor is quite profitable for everyone involved except for the slaves.
My point is not to defend modern prison labor, which is pretty indefensible, my point is that the exception carved out for punishment was not meant as slavery-by-other-means, even if that's what it turned into. See: 'grinding the wind' in contemporary prisons of the time.
It's dumb and pointless, but was not meant to have a profit motive. It was meant as punishment, in the delusion that work was 'reformative'.
Well, that's exactly what the 13th amendment says:
It's pretty easy to conclude that using convicts as slaves was a part of the plan. Remember, this was 1865, 99 years before the civil rights act. Black people may have been freed from obligate slavery, but the completely unequal laws made it quite easy to funnel black Americans into chain gangs.
Just because some white people were also slaves now doesn't really make a difference.
And considering that legislators are often involved with the legal profession, the wording is carefully chosen - legal challenges to 'involuntary servitude' have been issued on everything from community service to military contracts. Slavery, as we would recognize it, was intended to be exterminated by the 13th. What kind of evidence would you accept for the intention of the drafters of the 13th to eradicate slavery?
Chain gangs were an innovation that primarily came about after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, and championed by local elites in the South - I don't find it a particularly compelling idea that the Radical Republicans in the Federal government were considering that before chain gangs became widespread. Furthermore, extensive civil rights actions were passed in the Reconstruction era when the Radical Republicans still dominated the government, including anti-segregation legislation and the election of the first African-American Congressmen. It was only once the time of the Radicals had passed and Reconstruction had been ended that Jim Crow laws as we would recognize it took hold.
Yes yes we’ve all seen 13th lol you know what I meant. I am acutely aware of what you’re describing. I live in the on again/off again incarceration capitol of the world.
Not everyone. You'd be surprised. There was a ton of Republican whitewashing over the last century. But it's definitely heartening to see other people who know as well.
I apologize for my kind of dismissive tone in the previous comment that was uncalled for
No worries. You've got nothing to apologize for. It's all good. Besides I know I have a habit at times of getting a bit pedantic and autistic. I try to control it. But sometimes I just can't help myself.
As somebody whose ADHD expresses as compulsive talking, I feel you to some degree lol
I do the excited info dump myself.
Was nice reading this exchange and not feeling like such a freak!
The NORTH was Republican. Not cities. Rural and urban north was all largely Republican. This started to change shortly after the civil war. But long before civil rights. As freed slaves and black people in general filtered into the cities looking for work. This triggered the white flight of the early 20th century. They were what the whites were flighting from. And redlining away.
Hating cities became a solid Republican thing when they were courting bigots and former Dixiecrats. But it had existed, and was used by them decades before. So no. No realignment. Just a purification. The KKK joined up with the fascists because of their shared interests. Republicans didn't suddenly become bigots. They always had been.
*leaving dixiecrats to leave the party, except for Genocide Joe, architect of the crime bill with his famous quote about the racial jungle.
They claim to be, which is why it is important to remind them who they claim to be.
If they want to be the party of Lincoln, they'll need to do it more than just in name.
It's strange. They claim to be the party of Lincoln while also claiming confederate heritage.
Kind of ironic that Republicans now would accuse Lincoln of being a RINO.
They'd say he's a woke lib.
Hmm, makes you wonder what happened to make current republicans switch from the Democratic Party. Probably nothing significant.
Slavery didn’t actually end either thanks to the thirteenth amendment, which was later further developed by Genocide Joe’s crime bill. The Confederacy lost the battle but won the war.
Please read the comment chain before rehashing a discussion that’s already happened.
Where does the comment chain mention Genocide Joe’s many contributions to slavery in amerikkka?
I stopped reading after the first half because either you did that annoying thing when you see someone else’s comment and you just rewrite it to try and farm karma, or you didn’t read it and deserve the same lack of consideration/effort. Either way it was the right call.
Suffice to say I also don’t respond to forced talking points.