What kind of society was American South before the civil war, slave society or capitalist society...

That is why Southern politicians mistakenly believed that they could bring production in the North and in Europe to a halt. What good are industrial looms without cotton? Well, it turns out that cotton can also be grown in Egypt, and factories can be repurposed to make Springfield rifles.

retard

I think it was much more capitalism than a antique-like slave society. In the antiquity, the slaves mostly worked directly for their master; they created use-value so their master could consume it. In the South, on the other, they were creating value first and foremost.

Well, according to Marx capitalism isadvanced commodity production

Chapo traphouse had a whole episode about this
soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-50-akp-50th-episode-ergenekon-extravaganza-101716

In short it was a slaver society but the implications it had at the time are different from what we think today

mah nigga

Tbh I never really saw how a slave society was all that different from capitalism, and this isn't even rhetoric here. Under capitalism people produce and trade goods in a free market for a profit. Slavery is the same except people can be a commodity in this situation, so how is slavery a distinct system from capitalism rather than a specific type of capitalism?

No. The antique slave master didn't make his slaves work in order to sell their products for a profit. He didn't buy goods on a market either, nor did his slaves. In short, the production and distribution processes, that is, the very essence of society, were very different.

And what about the silk road?

capitalism is a slave society

...

What about it?

Wasn't a production in the eastern parts of the Mediterranean also commodity oriented to some extent?

Owning slaves does not equate to a "slave society". Many currently capitalist states have legal slavery.

Slavery was just a means of having the cheapest labor possible to produce the most goods. Typically agriculture in the 18th and early 19th century. This is why they fought so hard to maintain it, because it was bourgeois interests to keep the status quo, but the northern bourgeois interests of ideological liberalism won out. Assimilating the negro in a growing industrial based economy. The fact was those slaves would better serve in factories and coal mines than on plantations. And if they "liberated" them from conservative southern states, they'd go into those fields willingly.

Look how many blacks signed up and proudly joined the army during world war 2 when there was still "no niggers allowed" signs everywhere. I mean hell, most of you would throw down your lives for the very people that ban you on Holla Forums, Reddit, wherever. People are dumb like that. Every once in a while you get a Mohammad Ali "no Vietnamese ever called me a nigger" but you're all more normie than you give yourselves credit for and will submit to a monotonous morality. Maybe even more so now because as the standard of living has improved, you have a lot more to give up. Back in the feudal era the line between a serf and a slave was a rather gray one, and besides some objective benefits like being able to vote, own property, or not get lynched in broad daylight… in reality a "nigger" and a whiteman had about the same shit. Technology has made the gap between the ruling class and the working class are the more visible and no one wants to admit that for the most part, people in developed countries are at least petty bourgeois. That's not a Jason Unruhe clip, that's just a fact of life.

It's kind of why Trotsky said developed nations were necessary for revolution because without it you'd just have primitive socialism, reactionary nationalism and reformed democracy because the difference in class is not enough to fill you with contempt. What do you think fascism is? It's the collaboration of the ruling and underclass, not the uprising of one over the other.

If slave owners didn't sell goods then where did their income come from? Where did they get goods that they couldn't produce themselves unless they bought them on a market?

Do you mean Palmyra? Palmyra was a trading post. It was, however more responsible for importing Eastern commodities into the Roman Empire (silk being the most prominent) than it was for exporting Roman commodities through Parthia and into India and China.

It is incorrect that slave societies lacked any market system at all. They did have markets, but they were limited to certain goods. Often the case was that agricultural products were the primary trade goods and the state was the primary purchaser.

Marxism would rise like always.

Let me remind you I am talking about antique slave societies here, not about the American South, which, precisely, I rather classify as capitalism.
Now, with that in mind:

They certainly sold goods on rare occasions, those goods procuring them the small income that would allow them to buy on the market the rare goods they couldn't produce themselves.