What alternative was there to slavery in the ancient world?

[repoman]

Note talking about times before roughly 400 A.D.

Was currency developed enough to have wage (free range rather than cooped up) slaves back then?

Slavery was not so great, but excessively haranguing our ancestors for this institution seems strange.

How different was a slave from an employee?

Also how did slavery compare to feudalism?

 

[credoconsolans]

Interesting question.

Ancient Rome was famously run on a slave economy. Ancient Egypt was not. Yet, ancient Egypt rose to great heights, empire-wise paying their people as laborers. Perhaps at times, the people were treated like slave labor, but they weren't slaves.

 

[bilby]

The difference lies in the ownership of a person's capital value - A feudal serf differs from a slave in that he cannot be sold. His labour belongs to the lord of the manor, but his person belongs only to himself.

To a modern citizen of a (mostly) free society, that may seem like a minor distinction; But it was clearly very important to the people who lived under the two systems.

 

[Valjean]

Socialism?
There were successful socialist monasteries during the middle ages. That model of co-operative community could have existed at any time.

 

[bilby]

Socialism?
Weren't there quite a few socialist monasteries during the middle ages?

That depends what you call 'socialist'; the monasteries were always under the nominal dictatorial control of the Vatican - they were more like collective farms under the Soviet Communist model, with a rigid hierarchy headed by an absolute despot, than like a farmers cooperative or Kibbutz. The chief difference was that control was more lax, not because the system was designed or intended to be lax, but as a necessary response to the poor communications of the day. The pope couldn't micromanage, because it took weeks or even months for news to filter through to the Vatican, and for the instructions that news inspired to get back to the monasteries for implementation. As a result, individual Bishops, Priors and Abbots had a lot of autonomy.

 

[Sarpedon]

I disagree with the notion that slavery was ever necessary. It was common not because it was necessary, but because it was an efficient way of increasing the power of the monied class. The idea that it has its roots in the lack of currency is dubious, as many societies without currency had no slavery, and slavery increased in societies with currency. True, lack of currency would bring about a system of payment in kind, but to go so far as to say that slavery is a form of payment in kind is not defensible.

 

[repoman]

Slavery in the Roman Empire was legally binding, right?

Did the Romans have something like the Fugitive Slave Act?

 

[credoconsolans]

Slavery in the Roman Empire was legally binding, right?

Did the Romans have something like the Fugitive Slave Act?

Why would the Romans need to have such an Act?

There was nowhere in the ancient world where slavery didn't exist.

 

[prideandfall]

How different was a slave from an employee?

the difference is between these statements:
do what i say or i won't provide you with the resources you require to survive.
do what i say or i'll beat you and kill you.

Also how did slavery compare to feudalism?

substantially?

there's certainly a discussion to be had regarding what we refer to as 'wage slavery' as the general shittiness of the monied upper class exploiting those without means, but that is a very far cry from enforced labor upon pain of death.

 

[fast]

nm

 

[skepticalbip]

the difference is between these statements:
do what i say or i won't provide you with the resources you require to survive.
do what i say or i'll beat you and kill you.

Also how did slavery compare to feudalism?

substantially?

there's certainly a discussion to be had regarding what we refer to as 'wage slavery' as the general shittiness of the monied upper class exploiting those without means, but that is a very far cry from enforced labor upon pain of death.

Slaves have no options as to where and how they live and work.

"Wage slaves" have many options.
1. They can choose the kind of work they want to do.
2. They can choose which wage master they wish to work under.
3. They have some negotiating power as to their salary.
4. They can choose where they live within limits.
5. They can become self employed - making them no longer a wage slave.

I've done all the above so know it can be done.

 

[untermensche]

All options were available.

But slavery was possible and profitable.

Not as profitable as wage slavery and that is the only reason it was replaced.

Wage slave:

1. Must sell their labor to survive.

2. Will always be paid the lowest possible price.

 

[Kharakov]

"Wage slaves" have many options.
1. They can choose the kind of work they want to do.
2. They can choose which wage master they wish to work under.
3. They have some negotiating power as to their salary.
4. They can choose where they live within limits.
5. They can become self employed - making them no longer a wage slave.

I've done all the above so know it can be done.

There are some people who don't have that experience for various reasons.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Wage slaves" have many options.
1. They can choose the kind of work they want to do.
2. They can choose which wage master they wish to work under.
3. They have some negotiating power as to their salary.
4. They can choose where they live within limits.
5. They can become self employed - making them no longer a wage slave.

I've done all the above so know it can be done.

There are some people who don't have that experience for various reasons.

Oh, I don't disagree. But then they have made the choice. They apparently chose to be wage slaves. There are many advantages to being a wage slave rather than being self employed, not the least of which is the security of a steady income and not having to deal with all the many problems, hassles, and expenses of self employment.

 

[Kharakov]

If you are a person who rubs people the wrong way because of various (sometimes deliberately cultivated) bio-behavioral flaws, it can be as hard to be self employed as it is to gain a wage slavery position.

Just lump these people into the category "unworking poor" and treat them like Natives...

 

[ronburgundy]

The notion of slavery being "neccessary" doesn't mean much unless we specify "neccessary" for what?

For the mere survival of human beings? No.

For any level of structured society/civilization? Doubtful.

For the kind of concentrated wealth that allowed some people to sit around and think about nature, philosophy, and science, thus leading to the Enlightenment, industrial revolution, and the foundations of modern constitutional democracies, and consumer cultures? Maybe, or at least something not far from slavery.

It is not at all a coincidence that slavery became unacceptable after the Industrial revolution and discovery of how to translate coal into cheap energy sources that could do so much work. Slavery was cheap energy/work. Either slavery would still be widespread today or we wouldn't have anything close to modern society, if not for the development of the steam engine. Ironically, slavery itself may have played a role in creating the contexts that allowed for such a development that in turn made slavery less important to modernization.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Note talking about times before roughly 400 A.D.

Was currency developed enough to have wage (free range rather than cooped up) slaves back then?

Coinage in the west began circa 800 bc in Greek Asia Minor.

Credit apparently is as old as society. Writing developed from such record keeping.

IIRC the Romans during the Republic outlawed the use of servitude as loan security.

 

[untermensche]

For the kind of concentrated wealth that allowed some people to sit around and think about nature, philosophy, and science, thus leading to the Enlightenment, industrial revolution, and the foundations of modern constitutional democracies, and consumer cultures? Maybe, or at least something not far from slavery.

Those are unintended consequences of creating wealth to establish a military.

But I don't see how anybody can say slavery or near slavery was necessary.

Slavery is what humans liked to do because they are sadistic apes.

At least some are.

 

[Bomb#20]

The notion of slavery being "neccessary" doesn't mean much unless we specify "neccessary" for what?

For the mere survival of human beings? No.

For mere survival in what circumstances? Slavery was and is a solution to an otherwise difficult problem: how do you persuade an army not to slaughter prisoners of war? Is killing POWs necessary for the mere survival of human beings? Countless commanders throughout history have decided it was, for pretty obvious reasons. Feeding and guarding POWs sucks up resources that are needed to prevent your army from losing a battle and being killed or taken prisoner by the enemy, who will then face the same dilemma and who may well decide to slaughter you; but if you merely disarm the POWs and let them go then they'll probably go back to their army, get rearmed, and come back and kill you. It's a horrible choice to face. But if you make the POWs work for your side then the service they provide can assist your war effort enough so that keeping them alive no longer makes you more likely to lose the war. (Even better would be to get them to work for you by paying them instead of forcing them; but they see you as the enemy, so you can't trust them -- they'll either sabotage you or just slip away and rejoin their army.) So until someone can find a better solution, presumably either suspended animation or world peace, yes, slavery will probably remain sometimes necessary for mere survival. In Scotland I saw a lot of infrastructure built by enslaved Italian POWs in the 1940s.

So I think there's a sense in which that kind of slavery "doesn't count". War makes compromisers of us all. The issue isn't whether enslaving people is necessary; the issue is whether you should let them go when the war's over. Funny story about that. In ancient Sparta each year the ruling ethnic group ritually declared war on the enslaved ethnic group. Why would they do that? Presumably, to maintain the fiction, generations after the war, that slavery was about war necessity rather than about exploitation for the sake of self-interest. Seems to me that's a de facto confession by the slavers that the slavery they were practicing was immoral and wasn't really necessary.

 

[skepticalbip]

Although individuals owning slaves was banned in the US in the mid-1800s, The government in 1940 gave itself the authority to enslave some of its citizens in the form of conscription to fill the military ranks. Although they stopped drafting citizens in 1973, registration with the Selective Service System is still required just in case they decide they need to resume conscription. However, they don't call it slavery, they call it "serving your country" even though it is involuntary service.