George Fitzhugh

[NovelGentry]

We are, all, North and South, engaged in the White Slave Trade, and he who succeeds best, is esteemed most respectable. It is far more cruel than the Black Slave Trade, because it exacts more of its slaves, and neither protects nor governs them. We boast, that it exacts more, when we say, "that the profits made from employing free labor are greater than those from slave labor." The profits, made from free labor, are the amount of the products of such labor, which the employer, by means of the command which capital or skill gives him, takes away, exacts or "exploitates" from the free laborer. The profits of slave labor are that portion of the products of such labor which the power of the master enables him to appropriate. These profits are less, because the master allows the slave to retain a larger share of the results of his own labor, than do the employers of free labor. But we not only boast that the White Slave Trade is more exacting and fraudulent (in fact, though not in intention,) than Black Slavery; but we also boast, that it is more cruel, in leaving the laborer to take care of himself and family out of the pittance which skill or capital have allowed him to retain. When the day's labor is ended, he is free, but is overburdened with the cares of family and household, which make his freedom an empty and delusive mockery. But his employer is really free, and may enjoy the profits made by others' labor, without a care, or a trouble, as to their well-being. The negro slave is free, too, when the labors of the day are over, and free in mind as well as body; for the master provides food, raiment, house, fuel, and everything else necessary to the physical well-being of himself and family. The master's labors commence just when the slave's end. No wonder men should prefer white slavery to capital, to negro slavery, since it is more profitable, and is free from all the cares and labors of black slave-holding.

- George Fitzhugh "Cannibals All!"

This is a piece of work which my friend introduced me to. Apparently George Fitzhugh argued against the capitalist system, in much the same way leftists argue against it, but instead of supporting a push towards socialism, he actually promoted a more conservative system.

While I do not agree with or support slavery, the argument, from a completely Marxist perspective, is very much the same -- in terms of critiquing the position of the wage slave. However, instead of progressing beyond capitalism, towards socialism, Fitzhugh upholds that one should not progress towards capitalism at all -- or so it would seem.

I'm posting this in Opposing Ideologies for two reasons. 1) This is a piece of work which argues for a system even more backwards than capitalism, by saying the position of the wage slave is, in fact, worse than that of the regular slave. 2) I think it will be interesting to see the capitalists here reflect on these ideas from an actually "progressive" point of view. That is to say, if we agree capitalism is more progressive than feudal systems or more barbaric forms of slavery, they would indeed be to the "left" of Mr. Fitzhugh.

The complete work can be found at: http://docsouth.unc.edu/fitzhughcan/fitzcan.html

[redstar2000]

I liked this one...


The comparative evils of Slave Society and of Free Society, of slavery to human Masters and of slavery to Capital, are the issues which the South now presents, and which the North avoids. And she avoids them, because the Abolitionists, the only assailants of Southern Slavery, have, we believe, to a man, asserted the entire failure of their own social system, proposed its subversion, and suggested an approximating millenium, or some system of Free Love, Communism, or Socialism, as a substitute.

Not really true in 1857...but things were stirring.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Ok well I'm no economics expert but here's my initial impression from what you posted (ie. not the entire work).

First, I disagree that he who succeeds best is most respectable. Many highly esteemed people in the world lived in capitalist societies but were never "successful" which I guess in this context means "rich." In fact, I think many of today's wealthy people are looked upon with real cynicism, whether it be out of envy or whatever.

The comparison to the black slave trade is skewed somewhat. First, it assumes that all firms make profits all the time and that the labourer should be the one getting this profit. Yet this is not always the case. What happens when a firm incurs losses? Don't most corporations nowadays have to invest their profits into things like R&D to stay competitive?

Next, I don't see how taking care of your family is an impediment to your freedom. If you don't feel able to take care of a family, don't start one. I don't think it's fair to have to blame basic human responsibility on an economic system. The employer has the exact same responsibilities, though I agree that with the money most CEOs make, for example, that it's far easier for him to manage.

The black slave on the other hand is not free "at the end of the day." They were always considered to be the property of their master both in mind and in body, hence the master's freedom to kill a slave and attempt, or try to attempt, how the slave thinks by banning things like books etc. Not to mention the physical beatings and torture that slaves had to endure and were at risk of 24/7. The goodwill of the master is grossly exaggerated here. The living standards of the black slave was comparable to what people suffer today in the 3rd world (or South).

Those would be my initial thoughts. I'll probably drop back later after I've thought this through some more and read the rest of it.

[NovelGentry]

The black slave on the other hand is not free "at the end of the day." They were always considered to be the property of their master both in mind and in body, hence the master's freedom to kill a slave and attempt, or try to attempt, how the slave thinks by banning things like books etc.

What I think you have missed here, and maybe because you failed to read beyond the small introduction I gave, is that Fitzhugh's argument takes into account the condition of the slave as property. In fact, this is the basis of one of his primary arguments.

Because the slave is property, he is treated far better than the regular wage slave. Why? Because he is property. Would you smash your car into a wall? Would you sledghammer holes into the walls of your house? Why would you destroy your property? The condition Fitzhuh presents is such that the wage slave, because he is not property has a far worse life.

He continues:


"Property in man" is what all are struggling to obtain. Why should they not be obliged to take care of man, their property, as they do of their horses and their hounds, their cattle and their sheep. Now, under the delusive name of liberty, you work him, "from morn to dewy eve" - from infancy to old age - then turn him out to starve. You treat your horses and hounds better. Capital is a cruel master. The free slave trade, the commonest, yet the cruellest of trades.


Not to mention the physical beatings and torture that slaves had to endure and were at risk of 24/7. The goodwill of the master is grossly exaggerated here.

While one cannot speak for every instance of slavery, there are arguments which contradict the idea that the "goodwill of the master is grossly exaggerated." Again, I'm not defending slavery, the nature of it, "man as property" is disgusting in every aspect of it's conceptions. However, you might want to take a look at John P. Parker's autobiographical work titled His Promised Land.


The living standards of the black slave was comparable to what people suffer today in the 3rd world (or South).

This in itself is interesting, as you say that the conditions of slaves 200 years ago are comparible to the conditions of the worst off people today. Speaking within the context of technological development during these times, the relative condtion of slaves would then be far superior to the worst possible conditions of that time.

[NovelGentry]

Not really true in 1857...but things were stirring.

Maybe not, although, from this man's perspective, he'd probably see even a socially accountable capitalism as "socialism." Keep in mind, he's arguing FOR slavery.

What I found interesting about the work, however, is that is is normally the revolutionaries who argue against capitalism -- we've now seen a reactionary view of that period arguing against capitalism, using what I can only consider completely valid arguments that outline the horrid existence that is the wage slaves life.