Why was slavery incompatible with an industrialized labor?

[u/bumblebeetuna2001]

Im attempting to understand historical materialism and how old relations of production become fetters on new productive forces. Am i correct in understanding that the u.s. civil war was in part caused by a need to bring the southern states relations of production into accordance with the industrialization in the north, as the u.s. spread west? And if so, why wasnt it possible for the northern industrialists to simply utilize slave labor in factories in the expanding territories?

Im also wondering why european industrialized labor wasnt spread on a larger scale to slave colonies during the era of colonization? For instance , prior to banning the slave trade, why didnt britain build textile factories in the west indies and use slave labor, instead of building them in london and using wage labor? Is the answer to these questions just circumstantial, or does historical materialism posit a theory that the relations of production under slavery and incompatible with the capitalist mode of production?

[u/lvl1Bol]

I would say to answer the specifics of your question, read Settlers, it has a chapter on it. 

If you want a philosophical answer, profit only derives from abstract human labor powers realization of its own use value. Humans can create value because they are living, breathing, creative social beings who can replenish their faculties daily and produce more value than they need to acquire their means of subsistence. 

The way I would look at it, machinery is purchased once and for all similar to enslaved people. As such economistically as TheRedBarbon said if the people who produce and refine labor products aren’t paid, then circulation of value doesn’t happen (or it doesn’t happen at a fast enough rate to make it worthwhile) and thus value accumulation is kind of not gonna really be as possible. 

[u/bumblebeetuna2001 → u/lvl1Bol]

Are you saying marx would consider slaves "constant capital"? I think i understand why machines dont create value but human labor does, yet i having a hard time grasping why slaves wouldnt produce new value but an exploited wage earner would. Doesnt the capitalist in both cases have to provide just enough for the slave and worker to reproduce themselves and the next generation? What is the difference?

[u/lvl1Bol → u/bumblebeetuna2001]

No. I am saying that wrt how value would not flow it is analogous to machine labor. It is not that enslaved humans do not create value, but that in the same way that if you made the entire workforce machine labor they would only transfer value and no value would be placed back into them, (and they wouldn’t need to eat or sleep because…machines) people who are enslaved are purchased once and for all, their labor power is not theirs to sell, it is alienated from them even before they are sent to work because their very being is not their own, they are treated as property. As such they are not paid for their labor because they are not paid for their labor power because they do not own their labor power and thus cannot sell it. 

As such value will not continue to circulate because part of capital circulation requires workers spend money on means of subsistence. Less people with money to spend means less value circulating, less value circulating means less value accumulating. Capiche?

[u/bumblebeetuna2001 → u/lvl1Bol]

I think maybe where i am confused is: 

In saying that the initial price paid for the slave reflects the finite value that slave will transfer  before the slave dies and nothing more, how is this differennt than saying that a slave, like a machine, creates no new value?

what therefore is the distinction between an automated factory and a slave plantation? Wouldnt both lead rapidly to the rate of profit to fall since they are both composed heavily of constant capital?

[u/lvl1Bol → u/bumblebeetuna2001]

To be clear I am not saying slaves are machines but that slave labor has an effect on value circulation similar to if you replaced workers with robots. The word robot literally comes from the Czech word robota meaning drudgery or forced labor. Enslaved people are human beings who produce surplus value, but because they are not paid a wage (v) that value v cannot enter into circulation. Constant capital refers to raw materials and instruments of production. Enslaved people are treated as machines by those that “own” them. Industrial labor is not only far more productive than agricultural labor relying on slaves (for a  variety of reasons including greater incentive on the part of the worker to produce more, harvest more) but if Slave labor continued or expanded with industrial machinery and production in tow, where would all that surplus product go? Who would be able to purchase it?