Slavery: Socialism+

If you think that being able to buy cell phones and iPods and surviving on fast food does not somehow mean that the poor are treated fairly, that free trade is inherently unfair, and that modern capitalism is a force of alienation and class tension, then you may have more in common with some of us old-school rightists than you think. There’s a sense in which we ourselves could be called socialists.

You’ll notice something that nearly every self-described sovereign socialist organization has in common, however: they’ve failed to provide a sustainable alternative to capitalism. Our understanding is that this has been due to their phantasmic belief in human “equality” and “freedom”, which became a major force in society as soon as capitalism did. Classical liberalism and Marxism have the same pedigree, you know; it all goes back to the likes of John Locke, through Smith and Rousseau. So of course socialism tends to fail — when it retains the most basic assumptions of capitalist ideology!

Freedom and equality, in the absolute sense, are profoundly retarded ideas. Anything which gives you lasting happiness — certain people, or a certain place, or some idea — is a limit on your freedom. Committing to X means you’re no longer free to have Y the same way. Equality, too, is a fiction — can we not agree that Marcus Aurelius and Ashley Tisdale were not interchangeable as babies? Could Nigerians or Hmong have gone to the Moon? It’s a piss-poor reflection on what’s left of Western culture that a concept so absurd could be taken seriously. If we want something other than a consumerist waste-market, we must consider as waste the ideas it sells to survive.

Meeting the needs of everyone in our society will require taking attitudes and enacting policies which are far older than capitalism. Slavery and serfdom were in fact far fairer to all involved than free labor. If you’re American, it’s likely there’s a racial issue involved in your conception of slavery — but let’s maintain a broader historical perspective here. Slavery between and within the various human races is entirely common throughout recorded time — Epictetus, for example, was born a slave. With that in mind, we are going to hear from a pro-slavery thinker of the American South: the essential reactionary, George Fitzhugh. He argues against economic liberalism in his 1854 Sociology for the South:

The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism.

The development of capitalism was not itself the problem; it was the abolition of feudalism and slavery in the first place. The only sustainable socialism is inegalitarian, hierarchical, aristocratic; the very word represents a reconfiguration of pre-capitalist concerns.

Socialism proposes to do away with free competition; to afford protection and support at all times to the laboring class; to bring about, at least, a qualified community of property, and to associate labor. All these purposes, slavery fully and perfectly attains.

Thus we do not want a democratic socialism. To guard against the excesses of capitalism, nondemocracy is a minimum requirement. Mass democracy led to mass consumerism, and for both the justification is essentially the same: bad leaders are simply “what the people asked for”; cheap, tasteless products are just “what people are willing to buy”. Edward Bernays developed modern marketing and public relations methods by building on the inculcation of this mentality. Universal suffrage and unlimited freedom of information, unlike hereditary hierarchy which has lasted ages, are actually outdated — tried and untrue. A few notable statesmen over the last several decades have figured this out — Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, for example. His approach to government makes clear what any radical libertarian will tell you: that the relationship between a State and its subjects/citizens amounts to slavery writ large; unlike such libertarians, however, we reactionaries do not take this to be an indictment. If people require government, then it is reasonable to think that some of them require slavery.

How alien is the nature of slavery to you, anyway? If you’ve ever had a child or a younger sibling, or if you’ve ever owned a pet or a computer, you have felt — in part — what it means to be a slavemaster. You have the power to kill them. But you don’t. You care for them for no other reason than that they are yours. There are feelings of duty, as well as love, on both sides.

Slavery protects the infants, the aged and the sick; nay, takes far better care of them than of the healthy, the middle-aged and the strong. They are part of the family, and self-interest and domestic affection combine to shelter, shield and foster them. A man loves not only his horses and his cattle, which are useful to him, but he loves his dog, which is of no use. He loves them because they are his. What a wise and beneficent provision of Heaven, that makes the selfishness of man’s nature a protecting aegis to shield and defend wife and children, slaves and even dumb animals. The Socialists propose to reach this result too, but they never can if they refuse to march in the only road Providence has pointed out.

It’s obvious that many millions of people would benefit from such guaranteed care. People who today only survive thanks to welfare programs and half-corrupt charities — not to mention unhealthy food — would have guaranteed employment and benefits under slavery as well as a healthy sense of productive domestic order which they would not have otherwise. Slavery provides the true living wage. Some are meant to be masters; others, slaves. Nature knows not equality. This leads us to where Fitzhugh also had the balls to explain an even deeper fact of — for lack of a less-abused phrase — human nature:

Man is born a member of society, and does not form society. Nature, as in the cases of bees and ants, has it ready formed for him. He and society are congenital. Society is the being — he one of the members of that being. He has no rights whatever, as opposed to the interests of society and that society may very properly make any use of him that will redound to the public good. Whatever rights he has are subordinate to the good of the whole; and he has never ceded rights to it, for he was born its slave, and had no rights to cede.

All men submit; only a beast is free. From the very beginning, we are cells within a larger organism. If we want this organism to be healthy, we must be assigned functions based on an honest understanding of our differences. Otherwise, we are simply deluding ourselves, and are all the same enslaved by society. It will always be so. There will be ownership. There will be hierarchy. There will not be freedom. The choice is between mutual honor and mutual deceit. We reactionaries will take the former: rule worthy of might, and a proper place for all. That is our socialism.

  • alexandermcnabb

    It is the greatest shame the indignant rabble are too ignorant to appreciate the veracity of this.

    • Sun

      You pay them no heed except for their ability to help you grown in the dynamic way that is needed.

  • Loller Guy

    >Implying that tons of family members didn’t get sold down the river so the masters could make a couple more cents

  • Loller Guy

    What you’re really saying is that the less direct choice the slaves have in picking a master the better off they are, which is ridiculous.

    Wage slavery is best slavery.

  • alexandermcnabb

    Why should those chattel be allowed to have direct choice? It is a sign of strength to dominate the weak, and a sign of gracious charity to care for one’s slaves.

  • http://rezzealaux.wordpress.com korezaan

    Direct choice is good; it’s better to be connected with the one(s) who take care of you.

    “Wage slavery” is about as indirect as you can get.

  • Loller Guy

    “Why should those chattel be allowed to have direct choice? It is a sign of strength to dominate the weak, and a sign of gracious charity to care for one’s slaves.”

    This moralistic nonsense reminds me of debating deontological libertarians.

    If you cared so much about the lower classes, you’d be against forced labor, because more option would mean better conditions, not worse, for them. If you want to romanticize it and come up with all this meaningless metaphysical nonsense about signs of strength and beauty go ahead, just don’t act like your philosophy makes any kind of sense for the slaves.

    • Sun

      Your care amounts to nothing more the hedonism represented through “class struggle.”

      Of course it makes no sense to the slaves. That is why you are trying to make sense of it.

  • alexandermcnabb

    You expect some sort of objective validation of our views? We’re expressing our subjective preferences, brah.

  • Loller Guy

    This article alleges that slavery is better for laborers than free labor, so no, I’m not asking for an objective validation of your views, I’m speaking within the context of the author’s subjective values, but if you only like slavery because of some personal fetish with it then more power to you, sorta makes arguing about it pointless though….

  • ThyNeighbor

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (bold mine)

    It is “self-evident” because all men have, by genetic design, two legs, two hands, two eyes, a mouth to speak, and a brain with equal potentiality!

    So, after reading this article I’m confused about what the author (being, most likely, a human him/herself) may mean by “Some are meant to be masters; others, slaves. Nature knows not equality”!! So I have only one simple question: what criteria determines which are to be masters and which slaves? Nature?

  • alexandermcnabb

    Force establishes who gets to be what. Just like in nature.

  • ThyNeighbor

    Interesting!…it seems to me what you’re saying here is that two poor people from the ghetto–with physical and/or 9mm-caliber “force”–could invade your house, “rape your wife rape your kids”, and put you under hard slave servitude to work for…well, your benefits. Right?

  • alexandermcnabb

    They would encounter hot loaded hollow points from SIG, or more likely my AR-15, since it’s usually the closest thing at hand. This is true Darwinism at work.

  • Loller Guy

    What if they got together with about 10 or 15 friends of theirs? Survival of the fittest, rite?

    Bitch, please…

  • Loller Guy

    The fact is, social darwinism is an ideology of anti-ideology. It has no meaning. The North abolished slavery by kicking the ass of the South. Doesn’t this mean you should oppose slavery?

  • Bulbasaur

    The slaves didn’t earn their freedom through war against their masters, Loller. New Masters came in, kicked the shit out of the old, and then cast the slaves into the labor market. Because a system that sees the human laborer as a replaceable part of a larger machine is inherently more humane than slavery, right?

    Far from freedom and self-actualization, the thin-blooded descendents of the slave now sit on porches and collect meaningless checks from faceless bureaucratic masters to buy drugs and baggy pants. Those few who possess a will to power, who seek manly competition, are going to be coddled cradle to grave via affirmative action programs. Nothing a black achieves in the west can truly be his: he didn’t build it alone, and he never can. Everything the black earns in our society will come with an asterisk.

    ~625,000 men gave their lives so that an entire demographic could be spiritually castrated. “Equality” is the ideology of anti-ideology.

  • alexandermcnabb

    Slavery bad. Commodifying humans good. Choice is better than non-choice because I said it is.

  • Loller Guy

    >The slaves didn’t earn their freedom through war against their masters, Loller. New Masters came in, kicked the shit out of the old, and then cast the slaves into the labor market.

    That’s a non-sequitar. If might is right, then the masters who didn’t believe in slavery were right.

    >Because a system that sees the human laborer as a replaceable part of a larger machine is inherently more humane than slavery, right?

    You’re assuming that slavery wasn’t just that, which it was. Slavery is just private ownership and capitalism in human beings, that’s why the masters routinely sold fathers/mothers/sons/daughters down the river. The difference between slavery and wage labor is that the laborers get to choose who they work for.

    >Slavery bad. Commodifying humans good. Choice is better than non-choice because I said it is.

    Jesus Christ, you don’t get it, slavery IS commodifying humans. That’s what slavery is! Good God…

    And no, I said choice is better than non-choice if you care about the welfare of slaves. If you don’t, well, then we have fundamentally different value systems and it’s useless to continue discussing the subject.

    • Michael

      Most blacks would likely die if not for government welfare programs. 95% of blacks in the US want the federal government to guarantee them a job. This is according to a recent NAACP poll. So they themselves are asking to be slaves again. A slave owner has more of an incentive to care for his slaves than a corporation to care for its wage laborers. In a market where labor is disposable blacks are always going to lose out. Slavery is kinder. But it need not be restricted to blacks. Most people that are only fit for unskilled labor would probably be relieved to be slaves rather than be burdened by choice and uncertainty.

      • Loller Guy

        Blacks want free shit, that does not mean that in the absence of government giving them that shit they wouldn’t have it. Charles Murray has written a good book detailing how anti-poverty spending was a negative for all blacks.

        Bullshit, a job =/= slavery.

        So let me get this straight: labor is disposable in a system where employers have to compete like mad to hire employees and where employees have the choice of quitting the job, but it’s not in a system where employers OWN the employees as if they’re just car keys?

        • Laconophile

          “So let me get this straight: labor is disposable in a system where employees have to compete like mad to get hired and where employers have the choice of mass layoffs, but it’s not in a system where employers OWN the employees as if they’re their children?”

          fify

    • Laconophile

      Slaves in the context of early America certainly were treated as a commodity. But historically slaves were treated like land (which they were often tied to), they were conquered and rarely bought and sold. And even if they were bought and sold it was usually a once-in-a-lifetime transaction. Wage-slaves on the other hand, unlike regular slaves, are by definition a human commodity, and unlike your beloved dog who you only bought once, are bought and sold daily like a common whore.

      • Loller Guy

        Land is a commodity, assclown.

        Yeah, you want to know why “wage slaves” are human commodites, bro?

        slave |slāv|
        noun chiefly historical
        a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

        Because of the fucking “slave” part!

        • Laconophile

          Yes, land is now a commodity. That’s too bad.

          Slavery doesn’t necessarily involve commerce. Wage-work is commerce. A commodity is an article of commerce. Put it together.

          • Loller Guy

            “Now”? When was it ever anything other?

            Yeah, because slavery had nothing to do with commerce, right?

            GTFO…

          • Loller Guy

            Because slavery had nothing to do with commerce.

            Riiiiight…

    • Laconophile

      bought and sold daily like a common whore.

      Actually, bought and sold hourly, just like a whore.

  • ThyNeighbor

    Have anyone here who argue that ‘most black would die without the welfare hand-me-down program of the white-run government’ know anything about black people living in Africa BEFORE the colonial period? How did they survive in the harsh plains of Africa? Were there any white-man-run government to hand them down welfare checks in pre-colonial Africa’s rainforests?! 

    Obviously, if your theory is correct, there must have been such a government there to help them survive thru “welfare programs”! Right?

    Now, If it’s true that “95% of blacks in the US want the federal government to guarantee them a job,” who can blame them when you see where they’re coming from historically!! 
    According to Wikipedia, “The black middle class failed to keep pace with the white middle class because blacks had fewer opportunities to earn college degrees. In addition to the other obstacles, gaining admission to universities was no easy task for blacks on the G.I. Bill. Most universities had segregationist principles underlying their admissions policies, utilizing either official or unofficial quotas….Those blacks that were prepared for college level work and gained admission to predominantly white universities still experienced racism on campus.

    By 1946, only one fifth of the 100,000 blacks who had applied for educational benefits had been registered in college…

    HBCUs were already the poorest colleges, resting at the bottom of the educational hierarchy, and served, to most whites, only to keep blacks out of white colleges.” (source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill)

     It is this same government–who has always denied them protection from Black-citizen haters so that they could not enjoy the “pursuit of happiness” thru full access to education, and equal participation in the legal system, and thereby leave a positive legacy for their children, and children’s children–who is now disrespecting them with foodstamps check and ghetto-living conditions! It’s due to this lack of uplifting legacy that their children’s children is being disrespected nowadays in the media and by everyone who talk before they think—or at least use their brains to do a little research on the true history of black people in America.

    What we see today is a corrupt government thinking of washing away its past sins against black people by throwing down garbage welfare-food to the grand-children of these proud people who were once fearless hunters of lions, tigers, and, I may conjecture, even voracious dinosaurs-like beasts who have long been made extinct thru the hands and intellectual cunning of these skilled  warriors!

    The moral of this story (in connection to the topic of this article) is, when people are left alone  without any power-hungry sicko present who wish to dominate them thru slavery, they will find a way to take care of themselves. People don’t need masters, nor can anyone truly be anyone else’s master since “all men are created equal…” People need educational opportunity and raw resources to apply their intellect and strength to provide for their families. Only the lazy and the mentally challenged wish to have someone else as slave to do their ‘simple’ job for them!

  • alexandermcnabb

    1. All men are not created equal. Where did you get that insanity from, it’s not even true biologically.
    2. Hierarchies are virtually universal in humans AND animals.
    3. Let’s not forget the Noble Black Savage sold his own brothers into slavery in the first fucking place.

  • ThyNeighbor

    1. Let’s not forget, the noble white savage sold their own brothers in slavery to the Americas in the first place:
    “…King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

    The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

    Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.”
    (source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076)

    2. So if all men are not created equal, then the white already showed that even though they’re both white (and brothers at that), they’re not created equal. (so let me ask you this question friend, are you equal to your “noble-savage” next-door white neighbor?)

    3. But of course “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    4. Now, if you believe all men are not created equal, by what criteria do you base this on? What OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE do you have to back this up? (Please, share with us!)

  • alexandermcnabb

    1. Men are not created, most obviously.

    2. Evolution is a gradual process, it is entirely reasonable to believe some humans are further along the evolutionary trail than others, and we can quantify this with IQ, prevalence of genetic issues, general health, etc.

    3. This does not have to be drawn on racial lines either.

  • ThyNeighbor

    1. What I gather from what you’re trying to say here is that you, sir, are not equal to your ” noble-savage” next door neighbor—wether he be black or white, Chinese, Japanese or Indian.

    2. But of course man was created, most obviously! Therefore, it is obvious that we are all equal. The level and amount of genetic similarities between the different ethnic groups of the human race show that we share both a common ancestry and a ‘common design’. 

    3. Geneticists have discovered that every individual human being has 20,000 protein-coding genes in their DNA, and every single one of them shares the same ‘types’ of genes with every other. Since genes code proteins, which give rise to our cellular structure, and since our brains are made up of these cellular units, this turns out as scientific evidence to the FACT that “all men are created EQUAL.”

    4. Thus, saying that  “some humans are further along the evolutionary trail than others, and we can quantify this with IQ, prevalence of genetic issues…” does not agree with current genetic research, and never will!

    “An international team of researchers including Harvard economist David Laibson used large data sets that included both intelligence testing and genetic data to examine a dozen genes. In almost every case, the team found that IQ could  not be linked to the specific genes that were tested.

    ‘In all of our tests we only found one gene that appeared to be associated with intelligence, and it was a very small effect. This does not mean intelligence does not have a genetic component. It means it’s a lot harder to find the particular genes, or the particular genetic variants, that influence the differences in intelligence,’ said Chabris. The results of this new study were published online in the journal Psychological Science.

    Previous studies of identical and fraternal twins informed and bolstered the notion that intelligence is a heritable trait. This new research validates that conclusion, yet the exact parameters of the genetics of intelligence remain a mystery…”
    (source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112705916/genetics-of-intelligence-remains-a-riddle-100312/)

    What this shows is that, although intelligence is linked to genetics, at present there are no conclusive data linking specific genes to amount of intelligence! So your statement—-which seems to imply that we have genetically “quantify” intelligence—is scientifically unfounded at present! This statement looks more like someone who is trying to force his subjective views on reality. It will not work!

    However, when we do acquire that sort of information, what we will find is that the same ‘types’ of genes are present in every human being equally, to give them equal intellectual capacities!

    • Bulbasaur

      Cranial capacity. STFU.

  • marlon

    Men are certainly not created equal. That is nonsense. In all societies there is hierarchy because men differ in talent, virtue and disposition. This is obvious.

    As for slavery, the Old Testament implies that having to pay anyone other than God more than 10% of your salary is slavery. Certainly most of all people pay far more than this in taxes and are government slaves. Only the very wealthy are able to avoid this.

    If one were to offer slavery as an option (with a suitable name with less baggage) – you work for me under certain conditions, and you are taken care of all your days – most people would pick it.

    This is not an indictment against people but merely an indicator of how we are. There will always be leaders and followers, lords and serfs, masters and slaves, employers and employees, owners and the owned etc. – pick your label.

    What truly matters is how the lords behave, setting the example for how the serfs behave. People will follow and assume the dominant ideology wherever they are. Right now democracy and equality are the dominant memes, and as they continue to break down, hierarchy and inequality will become the dominant memes.

  • marlon

    2. But of course man was created, most obviously! Therefore, it is obvious that we are all equal.
    The level and amount of genetic similarities between the different ethnic groups of the human race show that we share both a common ancestry and a ‘common design’.

    NO. We have been created; but equal – no.
    If your argument is from scripture then you are wrong as there is plenty of God-approved unequal treatment.
    If your argument is from science then you are wrong as there are differences between men and the different races that are obvious to see, and detect – bone density, muscle attachment, hair structure etc.
    If your argument is from history then you are wrong as the different natures of the races of men and the nations within those races are evident in their social order, technical achievements etc.

  • ThyNeighbor

    Marlon,
    1. There are no “God-approved unequal treatment.” But there are ‘God remaining silent even while beholding men treating their fellow humans unequally’ circumstances. Why does God remain silent, you ask? Simple: “there is a time for everything, and a season for every purpose under the sun,” a time to give chances to the wicked to repent by exercising “patience and longsuffering,” and a time to judge the unrepentant with the fires of Hell!

    2. Surely Marlon, you don’t believe that differences in “bone density, muscle attachment, hair structure,” and skin color make someone ‘superior’ to another, right?! There are children who are taller than their parents, others who have denser bones, others still who have fairer skin tones. If such individual differences between people were as relevant as you argue, then such children would be justified to make ‘slaves’ of their own biological parent! Surely, you can see the illogic in this!

      Such worldview is what gives rise to the slave-master mentality that springs forth racism, apartheid, segregation, and many of the other evils of the world!
    (I suspect that you’re trying to think of a social system that will make people live in peace with each other, but I don’t think ‘slavery’ in any form is the right one!)

    3. It is true that people have different individual aptitudes and exhibit different expressions of the same human traits within a society, and groups (or populations) of people also have different social aptitudes towards life, different ways of looking at the world which, therefore, often cause them to develop tools in keeping with their specific worldview. But to state that because someone or population has developed certain technical tools in keeping with their social-cultural worldview (which make them a little more technically savvy than another group with a different cultural worldview)  is proof that this population or individual is ‘more human’ than others on the planet, and therefore deserves to enslave and rule his fellow humans is irrational (to say the least). 

    Let’s say one person or group is computer savvy; they can design sophisticated electronic systems, and code games and other apps in their sleep. Now, let’s say another group is music and lyrics savvy; give them any musical instrument and they can tame even the wild beasts with beautiful sounds, and elevate the human spirit. (These musicians can also invent their own instruments to create new sound.) The computer savvy knows nothing of music, he has no mental aptitude for it; and vice versa, the music savvy has no aptitude for digital circuitries. Are we to deduce that the computer savvy is more ‘human’ because his mental aptitude appears to be more technical, and therefore he should be the master of the musician people?…Are you beginning to see now how all men are equal, and how there can be no logically valid reasoning for slavery?

    Again, I suspect that you’re trying to think of a social system that will make people live in peace with each other, but I don’t think ‘slavery’ in any form is the right one!

  • ThyNeighbor

    “If one were to offer slavery as an option (with a suitable name with less baggage) – you work for me under certain conditions, and you are taken care of all your days – most people would pick it.”

    That would be a social contract made by two people who recognize each other as equal. That is NOT slavery; it is called fair and respectful employment. And they already have things similar to that,  it’s called a Butler, or “majordomo…house manager, manservant, staff manager, chief of staff, staff captain, estate manager and head of household staff are sometimes given.” Wikipedia defines a Butler as, “…a domestic worker in a large household.” (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler)

    Slavery is a different type of beast. Let me jog your memory with the following on what slavery is:

    “The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping, execution and rape were common..

    Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding and imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but slaves were also sometimes abused to assert the dominance of their master or overseer.

    The mistreatment of slaves frequently included rape and the sexual abuse of women. Many slaves were killed as a result of resisting sexual attacks. Others sustained psychological and physical trauma. The sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in the patriarchal nature of contemporary Southern culture and its view of women of any race as property.” (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States)

    THIS is slavery my friend; and THIS is what you are preaching! Now do you really expect people to stand by while you voice such inhumane thing?!?!?!

    (If you want to voice a new social system where everyone can live free, enjoyable lives, do not associate it with slavery! It is very OFFENSIVE TO MANY people! And some people are still living thru the repercussion of its traumatic after-effects. Don’t use that word, idea or concept anymore!)

  • marlon

    1. There are no “God-approved unequal treatment.”
    Yes. The Gibeonites were made permanent slaves of Israel by God. Slavery itself is described as something one could enter voluntarily to a kinsman. Also captured enemies of war could be enslaved forcefully since they were the losers of a war they initiated.

    2. Surely Marlon, you don’t believe that differences in “bone density, muscle attachment, hair structure,” and skin color make someone ‘superior’ to another, right?!

    I said that these make persons unequal to each other. Clearly these differences lead to superiority in some areas and inferiorities in others. This does not mean that they are not all human. (Nor did I ever say that. Why did you say that? Why attribute that falsehood to me?).

    Just as different breeds of dogs have different strengths and weaknesses in different areas, so it is for men – both between the races of men, and within the races of men, down to the family units.

    I am not for forcing men to be slaves but I do believe as the scripture indicates slavery should be an option for debt payments, and if a man chooses to be a lifelong slave of another that is also right.

    As for this equality business, you confuse complementarity with equality. Let us say that I am a good musician, and you are my business manager and friend. Our personalities and skills complement each other but we are not equal – which is good! Our differences harmoniously work together for a benefit greater than we could have separately.

    Thus inequality is a basis for cooperation and success. Let me be clear – you may be a better human morally, mentally and physically than I am. I see this is as good. I can learn from you. I want to be surrounded by superior persons. In this way I can be better. Similarly, I have a duty to those who look up to me – to be a better person that they can emulate my better traits and become better themselves.

    Envy is the beating heart beneath the denial of this obvious truth. Have you never met your moral superior? Your intellectual superior? Your physical superior? Or one who is superior to you in every way? Are you the greatest man you’ve ever seen? Is not even Christ superior to you?

  • marlon

    Biblical slavery is what I promote as being right not American slavery.

  • marlon

    Or any other non-Biblical slavery for that matter.

    American slavery was fundamentally wrong anyway even if it was entirely joyous to both parties since they were of different races – a clear violation of scripture as regards miscegenation.

  • Pingback: Lightning Round -2012/12/19 « Free Northerner

  • ThyNeighbor

    Marlon, let us first define equality, lets we fall into a pattern of redundant speech.

    Mathematico-logic is the language of precision. Scientists and engineers seek to represent their concepts and idea in logical mathematical form. Although we are not engineers building something like a bridge, or designing a rocket engine, we can still make use of mathematico-logic to formulate our ideas into non-ambiguously precise format to help with what we are talking about. But first, a word from Webster.

    The Webster’s online dictionary defines equal as “Having the same quantity, value, or measure as another; ‘on equal terms'; ‘all men are equal before the law'”
    (www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Equal)

    Mathematically, two sets are equal when they both have the same quantity and type of items, i.e A={1,2}, B={1, 2}. 

    Two sets that have the same quantity, yet different types of items can be said to be equal and not equal at the same time based on these two different classifications, i.e A={1, 2}, B={a, b}. 

    For two sets to be equal at every level, they have to have the same quantity and types of items at all classifications.

    Humans are equal both in terms of type and quantity of attributes which constitute them. That is why they are both called human. A creature which does not possess the type of attributes classified under the Set human does not belong to the human Set. A creature, for example, which does not have the human form, genetic makeup, anatomy and physiology, human-level intellect, emotionality, altruistic sensitivity, etc, is not a human. Anyone else who has them is a human, and is equal to every other human on the planet.

    Now, as I said before, two people can vary in the aptitudinal expression of the same attribute. Someone can be more technically savvy than another who is more musical. Expressing this in mathematical terms would look something like this: 

    A={t6, m3},
    B={t3, m6},

    where t stands for technical, m for musical, and subscripts 6 and 3 represent the level of aptitudinal expression in each attributes.

    On the classification of technical savviness, these two subsets are not equal. However, we cannot say that human A is superior to human B because his savviness level is higher. Person B’s musical savviness is also higher than A’s, can we say person B is superior to person A then?! According to the Fundamental Law of Logical thought known as “The law of non-contradiction”, two people cannot be both superior and inferior to each other at the same time.
    (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought)

    In another example of judging people and groups based on a single criteria, Lets say you think a man and a woman are not equal because the woman has bigger breast than the man, comparing them merely in terms of breast size. Well obviously they are not equal in this specific category (and we bless the Lord God for that!). But when you compare the two subsets (Women and Man) based on one or even a scanty few, and say such thing as ‘the woman is more human than the man, that she has more human-ness (only because she has bigger breasts), and should make slave of all men because of her big breasts’ (as you are doing with your idea of force), is illogical!

    The thing I’m trying to say, Marlon, is that you can’t compare people based on a single criteria. You have to look at all the attributes of each person, add them, compare the two persons, and balance them out to see who comes out on top. But since they’re both humans, no one will come out on top. In other words, even if person A has higher technical aptitudes than person B, when you add his/her total aptitudes together and compare them with person B’s total aptitudes, you find that they are equal (ie, when you add the subscripts for A, t6+m3=9, you find that it’s the same for B, t3+m6=9). This was and still is my point: “all men are created EQUAL.”

    However, we cannot quantify human attributes to see what amount someone has ‘more’ than another, numerically. This is not something we can do, that is another reason why we would never be able to determine who is to become master, and who is to become the slave—unless, of course, you can quantify those human attributes! (Then by all means, please share it with the rest of us!)
    ———-

  • ThyNeighbor

    “American slavery was fundamentally wrong anyway even if it was entirely joyous to both parties since they were of different races – a clear violation of scripture as regards miscegenation.”

    I serious do not understand what you’re saying here! Let me paraphrase you so you can see how it sounds to me:

    “Rape is fundamentally wrong anyway even if it is entirely joyous to both parties since they are of different gender – a clear violation of scripture as regards violence against ones neighbor.”

    So what do you mean by something is wrong, yet it’s good and enjoyable to the victim?! I don’t understand!

  • ThyNeighbor

    “As for this equality business, you confuse complementarity with equality. Let us say that I am a good musician, and you are my business manager and friend. Our personalities and skills complement each other but we are not equal – which is good! Our differences harmoniously work together for a benefit greater than we could have separately.”

    1. A manager is NOT a slave master. So your friend would not be your ‘slave-master’.

    2. As I made clear above, yes there are harmonious differences between people, but when taken together and compared, the type, value, and quantity of their attributes are found to be equal on a human scale! So no one can be anyone else’s master. Manager, that’s a different thing.

  • David

    It’s funny how I am actually able to read many of these posts and come to accept their positions through my studies of Hayek. If I had accepted Rand for example, I would be viciously opposed. Hayek argued that civilization was a result of restrictions on freedoms and was accused by many libertarians of being too socialistic. Those libertarians were of course correct, though Hayek apparently did not want to admit it. Maybe he was just too afraid of being called a Nazi. Hayek also argued against democracy.

  • marlon

    As I made clear above, yes there are harmonious differences between people, but when taken together and compared, the type, value, and quantity of their attributes are found to be equal on a human scale!

    Rubbish! This is where we fundamentally disagree.
    It is not possible to take together all “the type, value, and quantity of their attributes” of persons and decide they are equal – unless one already believes they are equal. I gave three spheres – intellectual, moral and physical – and you simply stated – everything adds up to being equal!

    The evidence – as I clearly pointed out – is that people are not equal. The belief that all people are equal is a wine of recent vintage that only Whites have drunk. No one else – not Asians, Blacks, Jews etc. – believes it!

    But I will argue no more – this delusion will be corrected in the decades to come.

    You

  • ThyNeighbor

    Marlon said: 
    “Rubbish! This is where we fundamentally disagree.
    It is not possible to take together all “the type, value, and quantity of their attributes” of persons and decide they are equal – unless one already believes they are equal. I gave three spheres – intellectual, moral and physical – and you simply stated – everything adds up to being equal!”

    Answer:
    As I stated above, and will state here again, we cannot quantify human attributes to see what amount someone has ‘more’ than another, numerically. This is not something we can do, that is another reason why we would never be able to determine who is to become master, and who is to become the slave—unless, of course, you can quantify those human attributes! (Then by all means, please share it with the rest of us!)

    So, How do you quantify morality and inteligence, Marlon?

    But I agree with you on one point, since the same is can be said of your position: It is not possible to take together your “three spheres – intellectual, moral and physical” of a person and decide they are unequal (making one person superior to another)– unless one already have a biased belief that the persons in question are unequal. 

  • Tom

    “The development of capitalism was not itself the problem; it was the abolition of feudalism and slavery in the first place. ”

    Can’t have one without the other, bru.

    “The only sustainable socialism is inegalitarian, hierarchical, aristocratic;”

    Apparently it isn’t really that sustainable, is it?

  • Van

    “Can’t have one without the other, bru (feudalism/capitalism).”

    A man can be good at making money and terrible at understanding human beings beyond the animal impulses he panders to.

    No one is suggesting that markets are not a part of the social equation, the author is suggesting that markets make a shitty Zeitgeist. Capitalism is the promotion of a merchant class to rulership and merchant advertisement to cultural propaganda.

    Merchants are incentivized to only see humans as consumptive animals; what kind of policies would you expect merchant rulers to enact? You really want to pretend to be surprised that a capitalistic world creates a glut of overskilled and idle labor, endless credit and ever more degraded products for an ever more degraded mass?

    With Capitalism, culture is given to the most profitable. Edward Bernays famously wrote that “politics was the first big business in America.” Western civilization is learning a very hard lesson: that profit is not culture.

    The author is suggesting that you can have a market without fetishizing it. That there is more to a human than his capacity to consume, and there is more to a society than economics. The West is proving that there is more to a man and his culture than material.

    “Apparently it (inegalitarian socialism) isn’t really that sustainable, is it?”

    The fact is, these inegalitarian systems are historically proven to be more stable and culturally renewable (sustainable). Drop that idiotic Misean snark against socialism. The socialism that failed didn’t fail because of a lack of fucking McDonalds.

    Our modern society seeks to make everyone an equal voting consumer. The majority retards scratch their heads at the ghettos, shitty music, meaningless sex, and school shootings that result. We Right Stuffers realize it’s not a matter of economics, it’s a matter of morality and culture.

  • Tom

    What I meant was that you can’t have capitalism without abolishing feudalism. Perhaps the most distinctive difference between capitalism and feudalism is the fungibility and transferability of land titles. When you have this, you no longer have feudalism. When you don’t have it, it isn’t really capitalism.

    “No one is suggesting that markets are not a part of the social equation, the author is suggesting that markets make a shitty Zeitgeist.”

    How so? Market exchange in itself is nothing but the weighing of subjective values against one another, and achieving compromise. Market’s are not a zeitgeist, they are a means of expressing it. Also, markets != capitalism.

    “You really want to pretend to be surprised that a capitalistic world creates a glut of overskilled and idle labor, endless credit and ever more degraded products for an ever more degraded mass?”

    No, I’m not surprised by it at all. I am not a capitalist.

    “The author is suggesting that you can have a market without fetishizing it.”

    I agree, but feudalism just fetishizes authority and land.

    “The fact is, these inegalitarian systems are historically proven to be more stable and culturally renewable (sustainable).”

    Really, then where are they?

    “Drop that idiotic Misean snark against socialism. ”

    Lol. I am a socialist, AND I accept Mises’ argument against socialism. Because his argument is not against socialism in general (despite what he may have thought), but the kind of planned, centralized, inegalitarian socialism that is usually offered as a praxis. What exactly is the difference between right wing and left wing authoritarian socialism? Looks more like aesthetic preference than anything else.

    “The socialism that failed didn’t fail because of a lack of fucking McDonalds.”

    It failed because of the calculation problem. The idea that corporate culture is essential to free market calculation is a massive leap.

  • Van

    I agree: markets are not the spirit (meta-narrative, God, etc), they amount to human interactions. Markets will always exist, it’s a matter of what ideal, what vessel contains them. I assert that Capitalism and Feudalism (and Liberalism) are such ideals.

    You won’t find much in the way of equality and democracy in the Asian nations, the Middle East. We have a glut of democracies and con-mons here in the West, but for how much longer? I don’t see much in the way of culural stability and sustainability on this path our civilization has chosen.

    Mises was huge on projection to divert from his closet authoritarianism. Many of his quotes against socialism/fascism could be turned against him with little effort.

    I disagree with the differences between left/right socialism being simply aesthetic. The left tends to think equality/human parity is somehow achievable, the right is willing to re-impose the old systems that recognized and built itself around the racial, social realities of human differences. Modern left socialists tend to be degenerates, feminists, and sodomites; right socialists are largely unheard-of these days.

    • David

      “Mises was huge on projection to divert from his closet authoritarianism. Many of his quotes against socialism/fascism could be turned against him with little effort.”

      Thank you! I said before, it was Hayek who lead me to Right-Socialism, because I agreed with him.

      Right Socialists may be more common outside the Western World, but they probably have a different idea of political alignment. If our ideas of Left/Right come from France, why the heck would an Asian country define their political system in those terms?

  • Tom

    “I agree: markets are not the spirit (meta-narrative, God, etc), they amount to human interactions. Markets will always exist, it’s a matter of what ideal, what vessel contains them. I assert that Capitalism and Feudalism (and Liberalism) are such ideals.”

    Indeed, and they are shitty ones. Most ideals are. That’s why I want a society where individuals choose their own ideals.

    “I disagree with the differences between left/right socialism being simply aesthetic. The left tends to think equality/human parity is somehow achievable, the right is willing to re-impose the old systems that recognized and built itself around the racial, social realities of human differences.

    “Equality” is just a buzzword, and damn near meaningless nowadays. The left promotes a specific set of cultural values, just like the right does, and they attempt to censor any criticism of said values, just like a right wing authoritarian does. To me, that is nothing more than aesthetic preference, and I don’t like anything that either side has to offer in that area. For example, I don’t care if a nigger is my neighbor, or my boss, as long as he’s a decent person. And yeah, I’ve known many of them that are, in real life. No preconception of a reality of racial differences can undermine the actual evidence that confronts me in reality. Believe me, I’ve tried, and it doesn’t work. On the other hand, I’m not gonna kiss a nigger’s ass just because he’s black and I “owe” him something.

    “Modern left socialists tend to be degenerates, feminists, and sodomites;”

    Exactly my point. They are fascists, just of a different aesthetic and cultural preference.

  • Van

    I want a society where individuals choose their own ideals as well. I think where we differ is you want to ignore the mass of subhumans who are incapable of such self-actualization. These people have no meaning unless someone gives meaning to them. The closest we can come to biological equality amongst fundamentally and radically-different beings is the symbiotic parity of Master and slave.

    Individuality naturally leads to oligarchy of some form. The modern world seeks to make everyone equally individualistic, which is a variation on the liberal fable that I assert results in our world of Honey Boo Boo and Nicki Minaj.

  • Tom

    “I want a society where individuals choose their own ideals as well. I think where we differ is you want to ignore the mass of subhumans who are incapable of such self-actualization. These people have no meaning unless someone gives meaning to them. The closest we can come to biological equality amongst fundamentally and radically-different beings is the symbiotic parity of Master and slave.”

    I’m not sure how you have determined that there are a mass of subhumans incapable of self actualization, unless you have decided that the lack of self actualization on the part of welfare niggers and white trash is evidence of a lack of capacity, and not the result of a system that uniformly denies self actualization to the majority of people.

    “Individuality naturally leads to oligarchy of some form. The modern world seeks to make everyone equally individualistic, which is a variation on the liberal fable that I assert results in our world of Honey Boo Boo and Nicki Minaj.”

    Seriously? Do you seriously believe that the dominant political and economic paradigm is one which is founded upon or aims at individualism? Wherefore then the individualist’s objection to the strictures of property and coercion?

  • Van

    Concentration camps and gulags deny opportunity. It’s when you realize that our system bends over backwards to give the lessers opportunity to lift themselves up that you’ll come to my stance. People are largely unwilling to experience the pain and conflict necessary to achieve self-actualization. Credit and an adderall script suffices, I suppose.

    You can always vote your objections. I can’t defend the Liberal absurdity of mass individualism, I merely point it out.

  • Tom

    Again with the “mass individualism”. There is no such critter. Every aspect of your life is regulated, either by the government directly, or by corporate privilege. A person claiming to be a socialist should be well aware of this.

  • Brendan Gilmartin

    I don’t trust anyone to own me as their property unconditionally.

  • http://www.zipcodelimo.com/ limos

    Welcome, from Hidden Hills, California I want to say, I loved this post. However, it is amazing how I ended up on your post. I searched for party bus texas on Bing and ended up on your website. I must say I do like your site and will check back soon. But I need to find the limo I was originally looking for first. Have a fantastic day! ciao.

  • AnAnarchist

    Society is not an organism, and I have no obligations toward you. You are an object which does not suit my tastes, and should therefore be ignored, humiliated, or destroyed.

    The reactionary will never again know the taste of power..