Talk:George Fitzhugh

message: This article is probably in need of a revamp - especially the summaries of Fitzhugh's two books - to polish it up. For somebody who has the time, the C Vann Woodward article link at the end has a very good summary of these Fitzhugh books that is better written and more accurate than what we have on this article. It or something like it should probably be used as a guide.
I'd do it myself but I simply don't have the time Rangerdude 07:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to consider his other political views and theories and not just his proslavery views. --Utinomen (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: His "slavery is good for white people too" advocacy was what was most extreme and provocative by the standards of the time, and what is most remembered now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Work Needed

message: I'd consider the characterization of Fitzhugh's advocation of slavery in Sociology for the South "poor whites as well as blacks" inaccurate.  My understanding of Fitzhugh's ideas as expanded in Cannibals All! is that his idea is one of universal slavery.  To quote his writings "We conclude that about nineteen out of every twenty individuals have "a natural and inalienable right" to be taken care of and protected; to have guardians, trustees, husbands, or masters; in other words, they have a natural and inalienable right to be slaves."
Though I'd agree that his writings were used in defense of Southern slavery systems, the introduction citing his views as "radical racial and slavery-based sociological theories" also seems a mischaracterization of his underlying philosophy.  In reading his works it becomes clear he was a proponent of slavery in a different sense than most consider, one not based on race.
One concept I have difficulty with and would appreciate any input is his idea of bureaucracy in his system of universal slavery.  Obviously these slaves would need masters as he only considered it the right of 19 out of 20 individuals to be slaves.  While I've read Cannibals All! and portions of  Sociology for the South I have yet to understood his idea of who would lead his society and if they would simply provide as administrators of a system. -- User:CRobey 03:44, 26 April 2006
:I'd like to see some justification for the claim that his theories might be seen as some form of "Pre-Marxism". This sounds pretty absurd, considering the differences between Marxism and Fitzhugh's version of slavery.  --Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoniel (talk  o  contribs) 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the term Pre-Marxism and replaced it with non-Marxism. Fitzhugh was a contemporary of Marx and Marx had not come to predominate in socialism at the time. Fitzhugh was acquainted with the socialism of his time, which also consisted of people like Proudhon and Fourier.--Utinomen (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fitzhugh was certainly not an agrarian socialist, or a leveler, but in developing a radical and thorough-going critique of industrial working conditions and "wage slavery", and the position of the worker within the whole surrounding industrializing society, he did converge in some respects with socialists/Marxists who were doing somewhat parallel analyses at the time (though starting from very different premises and leading to very different prescriptions for societal remedies, of course). AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The idea was circulating, but it was politically unpopular in the South, and appeared to confirm accusations made against the "Slave Power" by northern abolitionists.  Fitzhugh was different from many others in being unapologetically and forcefully "loud and proud" without regard for such consequences. AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I take back what I said. You're right.Sreyes88 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Slavery 

message: I think there is a class based aspect to this idea implied in his works though not outright stated. Genovese & Genovese have an entire book about the South's (i.e., Fitzhugh's) belief in universal slavery (or as it is called in that book "Slavery in the Abstract"). The book is this hotlink.   -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreyes88 (talk  o  contribs) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea was circulating, but it was politically unpopular in the South, and appeared to confirm accusations made against the "Slave Power" by northern abolitionists.  Fitzhugh was different from many others in being unapologetically and forcefully "loud and proud" without regard for such consequences. AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I take back what I said. You're right.Sreyes88 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 2020

message: He is listed under this category, but the article does not explain where he fits into the family tree. Valetude (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Fitzhugh family of Virginia