Blessings of Slavery: a free market vs. collectivization teaching tool

[AHPMB]

This is an essay I often assign in my class when we talk about slavery.  I use it because it allows the class to move from slavery to the bigger issue at hand, who should control labor the individual or central authority.  It was written by a professional slave apologist by the name of George Fitzhugh who was probably one of, if not the most prolific pro-slave writer of his time.  What sets Blessings apart from any other of his arguments is how he sets slavery apart from what he might dub "the tyranny of the free market."  While he makes all the classic arguments about slavery being Biblically justified (which I never tire of pointing out to Christian theists who shy away from saying the Bible supports slavery), the meat of this thing is his critique of capitalism. 

I post it here because it seems like the anti-free market, anti-libertarian people tend to make the exact same arguments as Fitzhugh.  I realize there is a danger of making a guilt by association fallacy, but judge for yourself how astonishingly similar Fitzhugh sounds to modern collectivist arguments, and essentially, the logical end of these arguments seems, for Fitzhugh to be benevolent slavery.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/divine5e/medialib/timeline/docs/sources/theme_primarysources_Slavery_16.html

[Lord T Hawkeye]

To him I'd simply ask this: If slavery is so great, why isn't everyone signing up to be one?  Heck, why aren't YOU trying to become one?

I love destroying pages of arguments with one sentence.  ^^

[AHPMB]

Having read the rest of Fitzhugh's arguments, he'd probably reply the way all those who take power in collective societies do.

"Oh, I would love to be just one of the guys, but it's my sad duty to take on the burden of leadership in order to help the rest of you see what's best for you." 

[Lord T Hawkeye]

What a martyr!

[MrBogosity]

I post it here because it seems like the anti-free market, anti-libertarian people tend to make the exact same arguments as Fitzhugh.

While, at the same time, accusing the free market of bringing about slavery.

Great post!

[Travis Retriever]

In all honesty, as soon as I read the first sentence, about the slaves being the "happiest and the freest" in the world, I stopped reading.
I can only handle so much blinding stupidity in one week...

[Virgil0211]

In all honesty, as soon as I read the first sentence, about the slaves being the "happiest and the freest" in the world, I stopped reading.
I can only handle so much blinding stupidity in one week...

You think that's bad? Watch 2012. It's rare that I see a movie that truly horrid. I almost passed out from the pain after the first 10 minutes.

[Travis Retriever]

You think that's bad? Watch 2012. It's rare that I see a movie that truly horrid. I almost passed out from the pain after the first 10 minutes.

And people wonder why I watch movies or TV these days...

[Virgil0211]

And people wonder why I watch movies or TV these days...

Well, my dad wanted to see it because the special effects looked good. And he was right. The special effects were downright incredible. They were almost worth the price of the ticket. But, as we both agreed afterwards, it was a truly horrible film.

Anyway, back on topic, I had actually just read about that guy. I was helping my girlfriend study for her American History class. Strangely enough, though, her book didn't really dwell on his arguments much. Just said that he had espoused values that would later be reflected by Karl Marx. I didn't know much more about the details until I read the wikipedia entry.

I wish more history teachers did things like what you did, AHPMB. It seems like most of them are arch-liberals. The ones I've met tend to be, anyway.

[AHPMB]

Trust me, there have been arguments.  When I explain to my kids how protectionist policies like tariffs always not only fail in the long run but cause economic downturns due to trade wars I've gotten some debate.  But I just don't know what other conclusion you can draw from looking at American history.  Seriously, what else does the Tariff of 1828 teach you?  It wasn't called the Tariff of Abominations for nothing.

[Travis Retriever]

@Virgil:  Hence why I don't take (most) history majors seriously.

@AHPMB:  So basically, they haven't read up on the broken window fallacy.

Also, back on topic:
Wow...He claims "capitalists would exploit the slaves if they weren't already enslaved, and that they are happy that way?"
Which must be why they were literally dying to get free and work in the "exploitative" market...

[AHPMB]

No they don't really understand the concept.  When I point out that protectionist policies always fail, they seem to fall back on some mythical ideal of protectionism, that if we could just climb the mountain and dream the impossible dream, would work someday.  Socialists always do that too.  Whenever I talk about Cuba, China or Russia around undergrads, I always get some smart-ass who says, well there's never been a true Communist/socialist country.  I always retort, "that's because reality and Communism are mutually exclusive ideas."

[Travis Retriever]

No they don't really understand the concept.  When I point out that protectionist policies always fail, they seem to fall back on some mythical ideal of protectionism, that if we could just climb the mountain and dream the impossible dream, would work someday.  Socialists always do that too.  Whenever I talk about Cuba, China or Russia around undergrads, I always get some smart-ass who says, well there's never been a true Communist/socialist country.  I always retort, "that's because reality and Communism are mutually exclusive ideas."

Oh, ho ho ho!
That retort is fuckwin.
It's nice to see a History Professor who doesn't have his (or her? O.o) head up the ass (overused saying to describe modern day liberals, but come on, it's a classic. ).

[Gumba Masta]

So, are all the things in communism bad? Or is the idea salvagable?

[Virgil0211]

So, are all the things in communism bad? Or is the idea salvagable?

Pretty much. Its basis involves discarding almost everything we've learned about economics in the past 300 years.