What is falsely called Free Society, is a very recent invention. It purposes to make the weak, ignorant and poor, free, by turning them loose in a world owned exclusively by the few.“ — George Fitzhugh in Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters (1857), p. 108
Yes, America's leading pro-slavery advocate defended slavery with socialist ideology. Fitzhugh's pro-slavery, anti-capitalist rants were contemporaneous and cross-pollenated with Marxism without contradiction.
The statistics of France, England and America show that pauperism and crime advance pari passu with liberty and equality. How can it be otherwise, when all society is combined to oppress the poor and weak minded? The rich man, however good he may be, employs the laborer who will work for the least wages. If he be a good man, his punctuality enables him to cheapen the wages of the poor man. The poor war with one another in the race of competition, in order to get employment, by underbidding; for laborers are more abundant than employers. Population increases faster than capital. Look to the situation of woman when she is thrown into this war of competition, and has to support herself by her daily wages. For the same or equally valuable services she gets not half the pay that man does, simply because the modesty of her sex prevents her from resorting to all the arts and means of competition which men employ. He who would emancipate woman, unless he could make her as coarse and strong in mind and body as man, would be her worst enemy; her subservience to and dependence on man, is necessary to her very existence. She is not a soldier fitted to enlist in the war of free competition. We do not set children and women free because they are not capable of taking care of themselves, not equal to the constant struggle of society. To set them free would be to give the lamb to the wolf to take care of. Society would quickly devour them. If the children of ten years of age were remitted to all the rights of person and property which men enjoy, all can perceive how soon ruin and penury would overtake them. But half of mankind are but grown-up children, and liberty is as fatal to them as it would be to children…
Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner, in every thing but the arts of thrift…
But the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all property in common, but to divide the profits not according to each mans in-put and labor but according to each mans wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The masters wants are most costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master to participate in the profits of another concern…
There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free laborers. Nor is there a war between master and slave. The masters interest prevents his reducing the slaves allowance or wages in infancy or sickness, for he might lose the slave by so doing. His feeling for his slave never permits him to stint him in old age. The slaves are all well fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and are happy. They have no dread of the future no fear of want. A state of dependence is the only condition in which reciprocal affection can exist among human beings the only situation in which the war of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise….
George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society (Richmond: 1854), 226, 230-231, 244-246
And sorry Trumpenproles, Marxist-Fitzhughism makes slaves of white people too...
In 1860 Fitzhugh stated, "It is a libel on white men to say they are unfit for slavery" and suggested that if Yankees were caught young they could be trained, domesticated and civilized to make "faithful and valuable servants." In Sociology for the South, Fitzhugh proclaimed, "Men are not 'born entitled to equal rights!' It would be far nearer the truth to say, 'that some were born with saddles on their backs, and others booted and spurred to ride them,' – and the riding does them good.
Pro-slavery, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, anti-liberty...why wouldn't a Trumpist and a Marxist get along? They're the same goddamned thing!
Your response reminds me of teabaggers screaming about immigrants messing up "their welfare state." Perfectly fine with the existence of a welfare state as long as their wing of the prison locks the other cell blocks out ...
No, I'm just overall criticizing that you can't erase the right-wing by mislabeling leftists as rightists that agree with leftists. It's an either / or proposition, and Trumpists / Socialists / same thing were never right-wing to begin with.
So, yeah, it's pretty much Southern plantation slaveholders thumping Fitzhugh who thumped Marx to declare solidarity with French communists that forgot to seize the banks. An old song, no new lyrics except for seize the banks, seize the media, seize the tech...
But it isn't right-wing. Stalin and Hitler were both nationalists. Nationalism is not exclusively right-wing and never was.
Populism, on the other hand, has always left-wing. Useful idiocy writ large.
I don't know if it was Molotov cocktail heaving World Trade Organization protesters in Seattle back in '99 that added curse words to a Pat Buchanan rant, or if Pat Buchanan took the time to reword a firebomb-throwing Seattle socialist's rant to exclude curse words, but that avalanche of manure was just pebbles has been growing since Pat Buchanan left the conservative chat room a little over 20 years ago.
The pale o' conservatism isn't even there anymore, and hasn't been for a very, very long time.
Center left, left, far left... Trump is not right-wing.
What is right-wing or conservative about Trump? His morality? (LOL) His big government spending sprees? His opposition to free trade and free markets? His desire to seize guns before / without due process? His resurrection of civil asset forfeiture without trial? Oh I know, it must be the "nationalism" of defending and deflecting criticism of murderers like Putin and Kim Jung il by claiming "America isn't so innocent." That's a rousing 4th of July fireworks display and barbecue with baseball apple pie and Chevrolet right there folks
Get the fuck out of here. Trump is a god damned leftist.
Donald tRump is a right-wing nationalist. He cut taxes on the wealthy. He ran up the debt bigly giving more money to the already wealthy. He tried to repeal the ACA. tRump seized zero guns ":(
Trade was the only area where he was out of step with the rest of his party. Stupid tariffs that hurt farmers and consumers does not make tRump leftist.
YOU get the fuck out of here. donald tRump is a God damned racist bigoted rightist.
ps - If you want, just send me the money I already paid in. You don't even have to pay me interest. Let's just pretend that you kept it in a "lock-box".
Even better, create a national sovereign wealth fund like Alaska and Texas and a few other states have based on oil and gas, that pays dividends to their citizens just for being citizens. Base it on oil and gas, base it on agricultural and food production, base it on manufacturing exports if America decides to return to making stuff from scratch instead of sending the scratch to other countries to make stuff with.
We have the means to never worry about social security going broke ever again, and plenty of real world examples of sovereign wealth funding in action.
We'd have to embrace capitalism though, so it would be a hard sell to the Trumpenproletariat and other far-left America haters.
<a href="https://qz.com/40235/why-the-us-needs-its-own-sovereign-wealth-fund/>Seek out new investments, and new profits, to boldly go where no economic superpower has gone before/</a>
A government that does not tax is a government that does not exist (as it has no money to operate).
Not to worry though. There may be some anarchy at first, but I'm sure other governments would be willing to take over. Mexico and Canada might sieze some land. Especially given that large portions of the South Western US used to be Mexican territory.
A Trumper agreeing with a leftist.
ReplyDeleteWell, duh.
"Seize the means of production" = "Bring back slavery"
ReplyDeleteWhat is falsely called Free Society, is a very recent invention. It purposes to make the weak, ignorant and poor, free, by turning them loose in a world owned exclusively by the few.“ — George Fitzhugh in Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters (1857), p. 108
ReplyDeleteYes, America's leading pro-slavery advocate defended slavery with socialist ideology. Fitzhugh's pro-slavery, anti-capitalist rants were contemporaneous and cross-pollenated with Marxism without contradiction.
-
The statistics of France, England and America show that pauperism and crime advance pari passu with liberty and equality. How can it be otherwise, when all society is combined to oppress the poor and weak minded? The rich man, however good he may be, employs the laborer who will work for the least wages. If he be a good man, his punctuality enables him to cheapen the wages of the poor man. The poor war with one another in the race of competition, in order to get employment, by underbidding; for laborers are more abundant than employers. Population increases faster than capital. Look to the situation of woman when she is thrown into this war of competition, and has to support herself by her daily wages. For the same or equally valuable services she gets not half the pay that man does, simply because the modesty of her sex prevents her from resorting to all the arts and means of competition which men employ. He who would emancipate woman, unless he could make her as coarse and strong in mind and body as man, would be her worst enemy; her subservience to and dependence on man, is necessary to her very existence. She is not a soldier fitted to enlist in the war of free competition. We do not set children and women free because they are not capable of taking care of themselves, not equal to the constant struggle of society. To set them free would be to give the lamb to the wolf to take care of. Society would quickly devour them. If the children of ten years of age were remitted to all the rights of person and property which men enjoy, all can perceive how soon ruin and penury would overtake them. But half of mankind are but grown-up children, and liberty is as fatal to them as it would be to children…
ReplyDeleteDomestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner, in every thing but the arts of thrift…
But the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all property in common, but to divide the profits not according to each mans in-put and labor but according to each mans wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The masters wants are most costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master to participate in the profits of another concern…
There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free laborers. Nor is there a war between master and slave. The masters interest prevents his reducing the slaves allowance or wages in infancy or sickness, for he might lose the slave by so doing. His feeling for his slave never permits him to stint him in old age. The slaves are all well fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and are happy. They have no dread of the future no fear of want. A state of dependence is the only condition in which reciprocal affection can exist among human beings the only situation in which the war of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise….
George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society (Richmond: 1854), 226, 230-231, 244-246
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry Trumpenproles, Marxist-Fitzhughism makes slaves of white people too...
In 1860 Fitzhugh stated, "It is a libel on white men to say they are unfit for slavery" and suggested that if Yankees were caught young they could be trained, domesticated and civilized to make "faithful and valuable servants." In Sociology for the South, Fitzhugh proclaimed, "Men are not 'born entitled to equal rights!' It would be far nearer the truth to say, 'that some were born with saddles on their backs, and others booted and spurred to ride them,' – and the riding does them good.
Pro-slavery, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, anti-liberty...why wouldn't a Trumpist and a Marxist get along? They're the same goddamned thing!
You don't know much about WEF's "stakeholder capitalism" do you?
ReplyDeleteAll those thing's you're screaming about...That's where corporate globalists are already headed...
Your response reminds me of teabaggers screaming about immigrants messing up "their welfare state." Perfectly fine with the existence of a welfare state as long as their wing of the prison locks the other cell blocks out ...
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm just overall criticizing that you can't erase the right-wing by mislabeling leftists as rightists that agree with leftists. It's an either / or proposition, and Trumpists / Socialists / same thing were never right-wing to begin with.
So, yeah, it's pretty much Southern plantation slaveholders thumping Fitzhugh who thumped Marx to declare solidarity with French communists that forgot to seize the banks. An old song, no new lyrics except for seize the banks, seize the media, seize the tech...
But it isn't right-wing. Stalin and Hitler were both nationalists. Nationalism is not exclusively right-wing and never was.
Populism, on the other hand, has always left-wing. Useful idiocy writ large.
I don't know if it was Molotov cocktail heaving World Trade Organization protesters in Seattle back in '99 that added curse words to a Pat Buchanan rant, or if Pat Buchanan took the time to reword a firebomb-throwing Seattle socialist's rant to exclude curse words, but that avalanche of manure was just pebbles has been growing since Pat Buchanan left the conservative chat room a little over 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThe pale o' conservatism isn't even there anymore, and hasn't been for a very, very long time.
Left = Us.
ReplyDeleteRight = Them.
Left = y'all
ReplyDeleteRight = doesn't exist
beamish = the Bill Bailey of Conservatism.
ReplyDeletedervish = friend of the working man. BWAH!
ReplyDeleteI didn't leave conservatism, conservatism left me. They went left and I stayed put.
ReplyDeleteExcept you weren't born before FDR created Social Security. You time travelled back to a time that never was.
ReplyDeleteFunny, I was in a party trying to privatize Social Security...
ReplyDelete...but then the Trumpers from Leftyland came along chanting "capitalism is the devil!"
ReplyDeleteTrumpers are from far right Kekistan. They worship wealth. Why a fascist capitalist pretend successful entrepreneur is their cult leader.
ReplyDeleteI would say LOL, but your bullplop about tRump being "far left" isn't funny, it's just stupid.
Center left, left, far left... Trump is not right-wing.
ReplyDeleteWhat is right-wing or conservative about Trump? His morality? (LOL) His big government spending sprees? His opposition to free trade and free markets? His desire to seize guns before / without due process? His resurrection of civil asset forfeiture without trial? Oh I know, it must be the "nationalism" of defending and deflecting criticism of murderers like Putin and Kim Jung il by claiming "America isn't so innocent." That's a rousing 4th of July fireworks display and barbecue with baseball apple pie and Chevrolet right there folks
Get the fuck out of here. Trump is a god damned leftist.
Donald tRump is a right-wing nationalist. He cut taxes on the wealthy. He ran up the debt bigly giving more money to the already wealthy. He tried to repeal the ACA. tRump seized zero guns ":(
DeleteTrade was the only area where he was out of step with the rest of his party. Stupid tariffs that hurt farmers and consumers does not make tRump leftist.
YOU get the fuck out of here. donald tRump is a God damned racist bigoted rightist.
Hey, if you have a candidate working to privatize Social Security, I'll vote for him. He just has never shown up on one of my ballots.
ReplyDeleteps - If you want, just send me the money I already paid in. You don't even have to pay me interest. Let's just pretend that you kept it in a "lock-box".
ReplyDeleteEven better, create a national sovereign wealth fund like Alaska and Texas and a few other states have based on oil and gas, that pays dividends to their citizens just for being citizens. Base it on oil and gas, base it on agricultural and food production, base it on manufacturing exports if America decides to return to making stuff from scratch instead of sending the scratch to other countries to make stuff with.
ReplyDeleteWe have the means to never worry about social security going broke ever again, and plenty of real world examples of sovereign wealth funding in action.
We'd have to embrace capitalism though, so it would be a hard sell to the Trumpenproletariat and other far-left America haters.
<a href="https://qz.com/40235/why-the-us-needs-its-own-sovereign-wealth-fund/>Seek out new investments, and new profits, to boldly go where no economic superpower has gone before/</a>
ReplyDeleteA government that doesn't tax? WTF?
Seek out new investments, and new profits, to boldly go where no economic superpower has gone before/
ReplyDeleteA government that doesn't tax? WTF?
A government that does not tax is a government that does not exist (as it has no money to operate).
ReplyDeleteNot to worry though. There may be some anarchy at first, but I'm sure other governments would be willing to take over. Mexico and Canada might sieze some land. Especially given that large portions of the South Western US used to be Mexican territory.