George Fitzhugh is a name that today means very little. But until 1865 he was one of America’s loudest and most vocal proponents of slavery. Fitzhugh argued that a society based on individualism and free labor was one destined to class warfare, social collapse, and chaos. In its stead, Fitzhugh proposed a society based on slavery which he argued solved the problems of social discord by establishing a league of leaders who would care for all the needs of workers and ensuring all people were well cared for in all aspects of life in exchange for their labor. When reading over Fitzhugh’s writings as part of my personal historical studies, I came across something startling.
In his defense of slavery, Fitzhugh explicitly explains how it and Socialism/Communism are the same thing in all but name. (Note: Herein I will used Socialism to refer to both Socialism and Communism because most everyone and every nation ever labelled Communist has in fact been Socialist.)
Yes, a slaveowners not only understood Socialism, but explained how its function and goals were the exact same thing as those of slave owners and how slavery fulfilled all the goals of Socialism. Further, he explains that slavery isn’t just like Socialism, slavery is Socialism and Socialism is slavery in all but name.
Below I share with you the relevant texts from Fitzhugh’s 1854 book, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society, and I do so with only a little commentary. Fitzhugh explains the truth that Socialism is slavery better than I ever have been able to do so. Anyone doubting the truth of his claims merely needs but look at the history of Socialism in the world and the presence of absolutely slavery on a massive scale in every single Socialist state – from the gulags of the U.S.S.R. to the collective farms of Communist China and everything in between. Slavery is not just an undesirable outcome of the failures of Socialism and Socialists to understand economic and political reality. As Fitzhugh makes clear here, slavery is embedded in the very nature of Socialism itself, to the point that the terms – slavery and Socialism – are but synonyms for one another.
Excerpts from Sociology for the South
The excerpt below is proceeded by an extensive quotation from an article in the January 1851 edition of The Edinburgh Review on the topic of Socialism. It is to this quotation that the first paragraph below refers to and then continues to quote from, which here is the second paragraph. Fitzhugh here is quoting other pro-Socialist writers to show that the nature of Socialism and slavery is the same.
No association, no efficient combination of labor can be effected till men give up their liberty of action and subject themselves to a common despotic head or ruler. This is slavery, and towards this socialism is moving. The above quotation and the succeeding one go to prove the positions with which we set out: that free trade or political economy is the science of free society, and socialism the science of slavery. The writer from whom we are quoting sees and thus exposes the tendency of socialism to slavery:
…’The working classes and their advocates must decide on which of the two positions they will take their stand: whether they will be cared for as dependents and inferiors, or whether, by wisdom, self-control, frugality and toil, they will fight their independent way to dignity and well-being; whether they will step back to a stationary and degraded past, or strive onward to the assertion of their free humanity? But it is not given to them, any more than to other classes, to combine inconsistent advantages: they cannot unite the safety of being in leading strings, with the liberty of being without them; the right of acting for themselves, with the right to be saved from the consequences of their actions; they must not whine because the higher classes do not aid them, and refuse to let these classes direct them; they must not insist on the duty of government to provide for them, and deny the authority of government to control them; they must not denounce laissez-faire, and denounce a paternal despotism likewise.’
…Now listen to the conclusion, and see whether the practical remedy proposed be not Slavery. We believe there is not an intelligent reformist in the world who does not see the necessity of slavery—who does not advocate its re-institution in all save the name. Every one of them concurs in deprecating free competition, and in the wish and purpose to destroy it. To destroy it is to destroy Liberty, and where liberty is destroyed, slavery is established.
[Fitzhugh then gives an extended quotation about the general acceptance of Socialism in England and the organization of workers by Socialist ideals of organizing labor.]
Now strip these and the extracts from Blackwood of their pompous verbiage, and they become express assertions that free society has failed, and that that which is not free must be substituted.
Sociology for the South pgs. 62, 66-67
It is worth noting here that, unlike the Socialists ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth, Fitzhugh clearly understood that Socialism’s rejection of the elements of a free society would inevitably lead to oppression. This pro-slavery Southerner of the early 19th century predicted the inevitable development of the Socialist dictatorships that arose in the 20th century. How? Because he recognized the inevitable outcome of rejecting liberty is slavery.
After here explaining that European societies were rejecting liberty and free labor for Socialism, and explaining that the rejection of liberty naturally led to de facto subjection and the rule of one group over another and the establishment of slavery, Fitzhugh now goes on to explain how slavery fulfills all the promises of Socialism.
Every Southern slave has an estate in tail, indefeasible by fine and recovery, in the lands of the South. If his present master cannot support him, he must sell him to one who can. Slaves, too, have a valuable property in their masters. Abolitionists overlook this—overlook the protective in-fluence of slavery, its distinguishing feature, and no doubt the cause of its origin and continuance, and abuse it as a mere engine of oppression. Infant negroes, sick, helpless, aged and infirm negres [negroes], are simply a charge to their master; he has no property in them in the common sense of the term, for they are of no value for the time, but they have the most invaluable property in him. He is bound to support them, to supply all their wants, and relieve them of all care for the present or future. And well, and feelingly and faithfully does he discharge his duty. What a glorious thing to man is slavery, when want, misfortune, old age, debility and sickness overtake him. Free society, in its various forms of insurance, in its odd-fellow and temperance societies, in its social and communistic establishments, and in ten thousand other ways, is vainly attempting to attain this never failing protective, caretaking and supporting feature of slavery.
…This, the noblest sentiment ever uttered by uninspired man, recognizes the great truth which lies at the foundation of all society – that every man has property in his fellow-man! It is because that adequate provision is not made properly to enforce this great truth in free society, that men are driven to the necessity of attempting to remedy the defects of government by voluntary associations, that carry into definite and practical operation this great and glorious truth. It is because such defects do not exist in slave society, that we are not troubled with strikes, trade unions, phalansteries, communistic establishments, Mormonism, and the thousand other isms that deface and deform free society. Socialism, in some form or other, is universal in free society, and its single aim is to attain the protective influence of slavery.
Sociology for the South pgs. 67-68, 69
Socialism is founded on the idea that one human has a right to the product of another’s labor – and the life, energy, and time it took to produce that work. This, as Fitzhugh points on here by saying that humans have a right in property to other people, is the very basis of slavery – that the master has the right to the life, energy, time, and product of the slave’s labor. Fitzhugh argues that slavery provides everything everyone wants out of Socialism – universal medical care, old age care, debility care, emergency care, etc. all from cradle to grave no matter their age – all provided for by the caring master. In turn, the slave provides the labor the master need. In contrast, in all free societies the people are constantly in danger of illness and injury that they cannot afford so they innovate different ways to get others to help them pay their costs- including humorously enough Mormonism. In this, free societies are only trying to achieve for workers what slavery does for slaves. Socialism, he argues, is the free society’s attempt to establish slavery and its benefits without naming it as slavery.
In the next quotation, Fitzhugh argues that while Socialists say that wage labor is slavery, this is actually an insult to slavery. He emphasizes the ideological connection between Socialism and slavery while showing how slavery fulfills the ideals of Socialism regarding caring for laborers and the abolishing of wages:
More than half of the white citizens of the North are common laborers, either in the field, or as body or house servants. They perform the same services that our slaves do. They serve their employers for hire; they have quite as little option whether they shall so serve, or not, as our slaves, for they cannot live without their wages. Their hire or wages, except with the healthy and able-bodied, are not half what we allow our slaves, for it is wholly insufficient for their comfortable maintenance, whilst we always keep our slaves in comfort, in return for their past, present, or expected labor. The socialists say wages is slavery. It is a gross libel on slavery. Wages are given in time of vigorous health and strength, and denied when most needed, when sickness or old age has overtaken us. The slave is never without a master to maintain him. The free laborer, though willing to work, cannot always find an employer. He is then without a home and without wages! In a densely peopled country, where the supply of laborers exceeds the demand, wages is worse than slavery.
Sociology for the South pgs. 250-251
Socialists saying wage labor is slavery and demanding the abolishing if wages and wwage labor continues today. This argument begs the question “Outside of science fiction, what happens to people when you abolish wages?” When people are no longer able to freely engage in buying and selling their labor at will and instead must answer to another agency or organization (whether a government or a worker’s union of some sort) for both work and in order to get food, clothing, and shelter? Fitzhugh’s answer is clear and correct, you become a slave to those who control the necessities of life, having to do what they command in order to get what you need to survive. Socialism, by abolishing wages and forcing you into complete dependence on other people and groups, institutes universal slavery. And in the quotation above we see Fitzhugh the slave master attack wages and wage labor as great evils while proudly talking about how slavery abolishes wages and ensures that all slaves are cared for and provided for by their master(s), achieving the ends Socialism strives to obtain. Socialists even try and induce you to embrace slavery by promising to do for you what slave masters do for their slaves, which is the topic of the next excerpt.
Here, Fitzhugh directly explains how slavery fulfills the property ideals of Socialism and is based on the Socialist ideal of holding all property in common and dividing it by the ideal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
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 man’s in-put and labor, but according to each man’s 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 master’s wants are more 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; he marries when he pleases, because he knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a partner in a smaller concern, “a poor man’s negro” boasts of “our crops, horses, fields and cattle;” and is as happy as a human being can be.
And why should he not?—he enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments. Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it brings along with it.
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 master’s interest prevents his reducing the slave’s 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. A state of independence always begets more or less of jealous rivalry and hostility.
Sociology for the South pgs. 245-246, paragraphization done by myself
Fitzhugh’s explaining slavery in terms of the slave providing more labor because that is what he or she is capable of producing is greater than the masters, but giving the slave master more of the final product because the slave master’s needs are greater than the slave’s need – which are provided for by the master – is one of the most damning critiques of Socialism every written. Fitzhugh even explains how property is help in common and a plantation operates as a joint venture. The illusion of the master having more comes only from the fact that his share is concentrated while the share of the slaves is diffused among them all. And if the master does have more, well that is only because the needs of the master and his family are greater than the needs of the slaves. Therefore, under the influence of Socialist ideals, the master will get more than the slaves – everyone according to his needs, and the master needs more.
Slavery perfectly fits the Socialist mold and here, by comparing the two, Fitzhugh even prefigures what Socialist nations would be like in the future. After all, what was the Soviet Union other than one massive plantation system where the few political empowered masters profited from the labor of the many who did the lion’s share of the work but always received less because their needs were lesser than those of the “nation” and those in power? Is this not also true of Socialist China, Socialist North Korea, Socialist Venezuela, and Socialist Vietnam? It is, and just as the plantation was a miniature dictatorship with the master having absolute power over the slaves, so too have all Socialist nations been totalitarian dictatorships where those in power ruled over society with absolute power. And the conditions for the slaves were the same.
Final Thoughts
Socialist nations have universally been nations full of slaves. This is because Socialism is slavery. It is that startlingly simple. And yes, I know that this will not convince the Socialists that they are only slave masters, that just because they (like Fitzhugh) have dressed the whore of slavery up in the lady’s finery of benevolence it doesn’t change who she is underneath the nice dress and fancy jewelry. That is fine. This wasn’t for them anyway. Not even Jesus could make the intentional deaf hear or give sight to the willfully blind.
This article is for those who are just being entranced by the lies of Socialism. They haven’t imbibed so deeply of the poison of Socialist propaganda yet and therefore can still hear and see the truth. I beg you, pay attention to the warning in Fitzhugh’s words. He understood slavery like no other man today. When he says that slavery and Socialism are the same thing he knew what he was talking about, as he proved by showing how slavery and Socialism have the same goals, use the same rhetoric, and come to the same ends. Just as slavery promised utopia but delivered Hell, so to does Socialism today. No matter what sweet words Socialists whisper with honeyed lips, the outcomes of their philosophy is always the same. Socialism produces nothing but, poverty, oppression, and slavery for all those subjected to it, because Socialism is Slavery.