Slavery

[kongurous]

For several months this question has been bugging me. Why did the idea of slavery ever become popular? The way I see it, the notion of slavery is fundamentally flawed but it isn't because of any moral issue I have with it. Free labor has benefits early on, mostly that the slave owner profits with no middle man involved and jobs that need to be done are done, but in the long run but the implementation of slavery effects more than just the slave and his or her owner.

Slaves receive no payment and are owned, so everything they get goes to their owner and they continue to work. well, what happens to the man who cannot afford slaves or the free man looking for a job? slaves take jobs away from other hard-working free people and the civilization devolves from there. free poor people have no jobs and the rich slave-owners have nothing to do and in the middle the slaves inadvertently dominate the lifestyle of the time by keeping the rich people rich and the poor people poor.

People need to work and incentive to work. Slaves do work, but slaves cannot voluntarily change jobs. They're sedentary and work until death or they are freed, which occupies the industries they're in until freedom is granted or death comes. No one wants to work the industries with a high rate of death but the jobs that people do want to work are held, so they're forced to take a bad job or sit around, picking their noses all day.

In the end, no one profits but the slave owners and even then, the slave owner is beat out by the man or woman with more slaves. It leads to a flawed and dangerous society because the poor hungry masses who need to feed themselves and their families are very powerful indeed. Any slave-owning society will come to the point where the free men and women are fed up with no money and no jobs and revolt, but this leads to unnecessary bloodshed.

So then the point of a slave-owning society is seemingly null, yet one could pose the question of why all great ancient societies were slave-owning ones.

And it is this question I give to all of you. Keeping in mind my points above and others I missed that are detrimental to the idea of a slave-owning society, how can one explain their existence and persistence on Earth?

[Prozerran]

Simple. It seems unthinkable today that Slavery is of any "advantage" to people and to industries. But this is not the way mankind thought about it long ago. In ancient times, there was this sense of spiritual endowment, a hierarchy of sorts. People were not giving equal opportunity. They were to serve their purpose in honoring the gods and the pharoah (sp?) through their labor. And money and earthly possessions were material objects of little value, not like today, so it seems inconsequential to me that anyone was "looking for work" or suffering the unemployment that exists today. Basically, I think it would make sense to think of it like this... if you were not selling goods in the market or in the service of the pharoah's royal guard, you were a slave.

Gotta break out of this Western worldview we live in today to understand the "reasoning" of cultures other than ours.

[kongurous]

Simple. It seems unthinkable today that Slavery is of any "advantage" to people and to industries. But this is not the way mankind thought about it long ago. In ancient times, there was this sense of spiritual endowment, a hierarchy of sorts. People were not giving equal opportunity. They were to serve their purpose in honoring the gods and the pharoah (sp?) through their labor. And money and earthly possessions were material objects of little value, not like today, so it seems inconsequential to me that anyone was "looking for work" or suffering the unemployment that exists today. Basically, I think it would make sense to think of it like this... if you were not selling goods in the market or in the service of the pharoah's royal guard, you were a slave.

Gotta break out of this Western worldview we live in today to understand the "reasoning" of cultures other than ours.

I wouldn't call it a Western view of the world so much as I would call it common sense. The idea that all men and women are equal by birth is a recent one to my knowledge but that doesn't change the fact that slavery is a detriment to the economy in the long run and it doesn't change the fact that influential, intelligent people in the ancient world couldn't have seen this. Economists are not a recent invention, nor are accountants and scribes.

I mentioned all great ancient societies. That includes Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica, the Indus River civilizations and the civilizations of the Yellow and Wei Rivers in China, not just Egypt. It is from these cultural hearths that all ideas of civilization come, yet all of them, to modern knowledge, practiced slavery and still managed to balance that out with powerful economies, even when one- to two-thirds of the population was enslaved! 90% of ancient Rome's free population was below what we call the poverty level but they still had slaves and still persisted and even thrived.

I am also going on the "official" definition slavery; that a man or woman is legally owned by someone else and receives no pay and no compensation for their work other than the food and water they consume and their shelter (at owner's expense). Being poor and homeless and being a slave is very different and has always been different, even in ancient Egypt.

With the rise of outsourcing in the modern world, the people in the countries whose labor is being outsourced are losing jobs and their economies are stagnating and places like China and India are gaining jobs and have cheap labor. Those working in sweatshops still receive pay, yes, along with some other benefits, but calling them slaves wouldn't be too much of a leap with how little they are paid and the hours that they work.

It doesn't seem too much of a leap to me to look at the effects of modern outsourcing and then look at ancient slavery and wonder why they didn't suffer the same problems in that regard that we do. Perhaps they did and records don't survive. I am not certain.

[ChimTheGrim21]

People around those times were pretty extreme. Even the Puritans were not a friendly bunch when it comes right down to it. So it seems a simple way of thinking was easier to spread than the "common sense" ideology you speak of. Some things are just not 100% explainable. It is a difference in times.

[Prozerran]

I wouldn't call it a Western view of the world so much as I would call it common sense. The idea that all men and women are equal by birth is a recent one to my knowledge but that doesn't change the fact that slavery is a detriment to the economy in the long run and it doesn't change the fact that influential, intelligent people in the ancient world couldn't have seen this. Economists are not a recent invention, nor are accountants and scribes.

Economists, Accountants, and Scribes may not be "recent" inventions, but the concern for "Economy" is relatively new (about 200-300 years in the context of almost 2000). See, trade has always existed. And even supplementation of commerce in place of real goods is not "recent", but the idea that the "Economy" was of central concern to rulers of nations across all time just isn't an accurate statement. You can't take our view of the world and the importance we apply to something today, then juxtapose that on something that existed a thousand years ago to create a "paradox" of sorts without resolution. The resolution is that economy wasn't central to the survival of civilizations in the past. It wasn't really of critical importance to the Greeks, and it wasn't until Rome that matters of Economy became central to the stability of civilizations.

And even if we assume for a moment that it was, there's still a much larger discrepancy between our society and the other societies, the type of government. See, we're the first society to start a democracy as it is understood today. We typically think of democracy as coming from Rome, but in reality the Roman version of "democracy" is more akin to the organization of England with a parliament and an emperor.

I mentioned all great ancient societies. That includes Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica, the Indus River civilizations and the civilizations of the Yellow and Wei Rivers in China, not just Egypt. It is from these cultural hearths that all ideas of civilization come, yet all of them, to modern knowledge, practiced slavery and still managed to balance that out with powerful economies, even when one- to two-thirds of the population was enslaved! 90% of ancient Rome's free population was below what we call the poverty level but they still had slaves and still persisted and even thrived.

I am also going on the "official" definition slavery; that a man or woman is legally owned by someone else and receives no pay and no compensation for their work other than the food and water they consume and their shelter (at owner's expense). Being poor and homeless and being a slave is very different and has always been different, even in ancient Egypt.

I never really mentioned being poor or homeless, but o.k. I don't really see the significance of having all people earning money or just a few, since money always works as a form of circulation. There are certain things like food and shelter that keep circulation constant. As long as currency is flowing through the market, you're going to have a stable economy.

With the rise of outsourcing in the modern world, the people in the countries whose labor is being outsourced are losing jobs and their economies are stagnating and places like China and India are gaining jobs and have cheap labor. Those working in sweatshops still receive pay, yes, along with some other benefits, but calling them slaves wouldn't be too much of a leap with how little they are paid and the hours that they work.

It doesn't seem too much of a leap to me to look at the effects of modern outsourcing and then look at ancient slavery and wonder why they didn't suffer the same problems in that regard that we do. Perhaps they did and records don't survive. I am not certain.

Well, this is an interesting way to look at it, and I see where you're going with this, but I can't say I agree with giving modern-day outsourcing the same kind of description as that of slavery. See, it makes sense if you can keep the currency circulating within a society's marketplace. When outsourcing occurs, that closed cycle is opened, and unless you have currency returning to that market to make up for the loss, you're going to have a collapsing economy, like a deflating balloon. Plug the leak, so to speak. But with slavery, since it had nothing to do with whether that society's market was a closed system, it doesn't really directly relate to outsourcing. Sure, I can see where you're getting the connection in the sense that both are cheap forms of labor, but in regards to the economy, one does not equate to the other.

[femoimal]

an intro about slavery:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0861124.html

in ancient greece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece

in Rome (interesting, more related to the thread):
http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

After the Fall of Rome and in the Middle-ages:
http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa012698.htm
(black death changed things after)

Italian Renaissance:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REN/BACK.HTM
...That's capital slavery for you. Bankers replacing aristocrats.

in the US:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2.html

Finally, modern slavery:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/slavery_is_not.php

hope it helps a bit.

[kongurous]

Economists, Accountants, and Scribes may not be "recent" inventions, but the concern for "Economy" is relatively new (about 200-300 years in the context of almost 2000). See, trade has always existed. And even supplementation of commerce in place of real goods is not "recent", but the idea that the "Economy" was of central concern to rulers of nations across all time just isn't an accurate statement. You can't take our view of the world and the importance we apply to something today, then juxtapose that on something that existed a thousand years ago to create a "paradox" of sorts without resolution. The resolution is that economy wasn't central to the survival of civilizations in the past. It wasn't really of critical importance to the Greeks, and it wasn't until Rome that matters of Economy became central to the stability of civilizations.

[...]

Well, this is an interesting way to look at it, and I see where you're going with this, but I can't say I agree with giving modern-day outsourcing the same kind of description as that of slavery. See, it makes sense if you can keep the currency circulating within a society's marketplace. When outsourcing occurs, that closed cycle is opened, and unless you have currency returning to that market to make up for the loss, you're going to have a collapsing economy, like a deflating balloon. Plug the leak, so to speak. But with slavery, since it had nothing to do with whether that society's market was a closed system, it doesn't really directly relate to outsourcing. Sure, I can see where you're getting the connection in the sense that both are cheap forms of labor, but in regards to the economy, one does not equate to the other.

I think I understand what you are saying. As sound as my ideas may or may not be, I am thinking of ancient societies as following the same kind of economy that America follows and in this type of economy, my ideas would apply, but taking this "standard" and trying to put it over ancient civilizations would not work.

So what about modern societies? Slavery is still practiced in third world countries and industrializing countries and what people seem to aspire to these days is a free market economy like that of the United States (or, rather, as much of one as we try to have) or a communist/socialist economy like that of Western Europe or China. Perhaps I have made another flaw in my reasoning here, I simply have not studied the economies of countries that are trying to "make it" financially to catch myself.

Anyway, in the context of a society of people working to receive pay that they use to pay for groceries, luxuries, and so on, would slavery work? I think it would not, as it seems my opening post was made from this reasoning.

[Prozerran]

I think I understand what you are saying. As sound as my ideas may or may not be, I am thinking of ancient societies as following the same kind of economy that America follows and in this type of economy, my ideas would apply, but taking this "standard" and trying to put it over ancient civilizations would not work.

So what about modern societies? Slavery is still practiced in third world countries and industrializing countries and what people seem to aspire to these days is a free market economy like that of the United States (or, rather, as much of one as we try to have) or a communist/socialist economy like that of Western Europe or China. Perhaps I have made another flaw in my reasoning here, I simply have not studied the economies of countries that are trying to "make it" financially to catch myself.

Anyway, in the context of a society of people working to receive pay that they use to pay for groceries, luxuries, and so on, would slavery work? I think it would not, as it seems my opening post was made from this reasoning.

Would slavery work for today's economy? Yes, I believe it would. The problem is that a global economy suffers from, like I already said, outsourcing jobs to other countries, and thus, opening the closed circuit of commerce in the originating country. But obviously, if less people were working for standard wages and working more like indentured servants or slaves, then owners of those slaves would be the ones continuing the circulation of commerce, not the slaves themselves.

I know it seems like it would have an impact on our economy, and for a period of adjustment it probably would. Obviously retail outlets and other consumer services would cash out and close down. Our schools would probably change along the lines they already are now (into technical training institutions), only much faster. But in the long run, it would turn into something of tremendous growth for the economy and greater ease to the government. Why does it feel like this is the road we're heading down? Because in truth, we've lost our way and we haven't realized it. We probably won't until it's too late, but that's the breaks of an ordered society. I'll move to Canada, though, where social health care issues and violence are all but gone. Gee, it'd be nice if politicians actually cared about changing these problems, because if they did they'd be looking to these nations like Canada for solutions and not trying to make them up on the spot.

[deadkiller]

Yes, it would have great influence on economy but in the long run there will be consquences such as inequity and discrimination which governments for so long have tried to prevent by creating numerous laws and Acts. If you bring back one factor of the past then all the others will come back to and history will most definitly repeat itself. Anyways technology is advancing and the need for labour will fall dramatically in the near future because of the arrival of robots and machines. Though the only slavery i consider is child labour

[tzzA]

From the original post, you seem to be viewing ancient slavery as similar to that practiced in the 1700s and 1800s in the US and other countries. This was not the case. In Rome, for example, most slaves were prisoners of war. They were often released from servitude, at which point they were supported by their former masters. Also, the average (upper-class) Roman has only a few slaves-normally no more than 20. They generally functioned in roles similar to those of servants. In the Southern plantations, hundreds of slaves worked at one job for essentially their entire lives. Also, Rome possessed a considerable middle class-in the South, the middle class was almost nonexistent.

[mranderson]

Most likely slavery came into existence to manufacture a larger quantity of goods while paying less for the work which ends in a more beneficial profit. Same principle applies in outsourcing.

in the South, the middle class was almost nonexistent.

There was a reason for this. Remembering back to my high school U.S. history class the south had slaves to free time for the landowners, and other classes for other pursuits, such as becoming "more intellectualized." (probably not a word, but oh well) Without having to work eight hours a day five times a week people were free to read, write, and ponder about life, pursue military careers, and other professions as long as they had a family involved in a large plantation. Now I realize that not everyone was high class, or slaves, but that was the theory. Than again the north won through industry with their masses of "lower class" who worked their lives away in a factory for their money. But who was it again that died on the battlefield to win, because it wasn't the upper class in the north. Completely a different subject though.

But if a society could say, have a almost free source of labor with only a one shot production cost that eventually gave more money than was put into it, be a better alternative than now. A mass of workers who do dangerous work, but have no life so to speak to give up, or waste. One in which no one could argue against.

But one step farther than this is what would happen if it turned into a society where everyone was equal except for others who excelled, and were placed as the leaders? Where no one needed to worry about expenses, or other things, and were free in their pursuit of happiness. Where the benefits of a working class that were not subject to laws were used to benefit the whole human race. Where mankind could marvel at his own magnificence? (Know where I saw this theory? I'll give you a hint later if you need it.)

Than again the best things in life aren't free...

[Anoiktos]

I recently read a book which covered this topic reasonably well, and came to much the same conclusion you did.

Early slave-owners brought slaves over because in order to cultivate enough food to survive in an environment nominally inimical to traditional British crops, an inordinate amount of time had to be spent cultivating them; doing so oneself, under conditions greater than those of slavery, was not something early settlers wanted to do. Furthermore, to compete with the native Americans (who were used to the regular produce of the land) of the time in produce and prosperity was essentially impossible because of this without slaves.

As you say, however, this really only profits the landowners, the rich, etc, etc. This is the case. During the early british settlement of the Americas, indentured servants and african slaves were granted essentially the same rights and treated similarly. Due to this, the slaves and indentured servants tended to see each other as, if not equals, comrades, and so when they revolted (and they did) they did so together, and were often able to win their freedom or at least put their masters to inconvenience.

It was to remove this liability that the indentured servants were given nominal rights greater than that of slaves, i.e. land grants at the ends of their terms of service, minor pay, rest days, etc, essentially creating a rift between the two groups that made rebellion much less common.

Furthermore, while the native americans were not seen as slaves (not for lack of trying), this was because they had been living on this land for long periods of time, and so made poor slaves as their culture was entirely different and unused to english rule, and furthermore their woodsmanship was such that keeping them as slaves was impractical and unprofitable.

The Africans, who had been living as slaves for generations (albeit the term 'slave' was different in Africa, where slaves often went free, owned property and slaves, etc - treated better, in fact, than traditional feudal 'serfs' of the european Dark Ages) were taken from both their culture and their land, and so had nowhere to turn to for succor or support. Thus they were seen as 'primitives', unable to operate in a society and location completely alien to them.

All of this, however, is generally better than the way in which Christopher Columbus, Pizzaro, Cortez, and the rest of the Conquistadores treated the natives they ran into; Columbus, for example, landed on one of the isles of the Carribean, and noted that the natives there were generous and giving, willing to trade wonders for baubles and share anything they had freely. He took this as an indication that they would be easy to enslave and forced them to look for gold for him on the island, killing anyone who did not bring him a certain amount.

Regrettably, there *was* very little gold on the island, and so the natives on the island were wiped out, or committed suicide.

[Prozerran]

All of this, however, is generally better than the way in which Christopher Columbus, Pizzaro, Cortez, and the rest of the Conquistadores treated the natives they ran into; Columbus, for example, landed on one of the isles of the Carribean, and noted that the natives there were generous and giving, willing to trade wonders for baubles and share anything they had freely. He took this as an indication that they would be easy to enslave and forced them to look for gold for him on the island, killing anyone who did not bring him a certain amount.

Regrettably, there *was* very little gold on the island, and so the natives on the island were wiped out, or committed suicide.

You mean to tell me that Christopher Columbus was a bad man? Say it isn't so...

Who learns this in history class anyway? There is so much crap that is misrepresented in the historic narrative. It's so much more interesting to me to get the real story, the real, truly ugly side of how we got here. I love how I see Charlie Brown specials in school that tell us "American History" but just leave out those little, disgusting tidbits about what happened to other cultures in the process. Guess it's just not patriotic to dwell on the negatives.

[Anoiktos]

You mean to tell me that Christopher Columbus was a bad man? Say it isn't so...
I mean to tell you that he was Spanish and a Conquistador, and thus profit-centric in his ideology considering the perils of having spent much time and money off in 'the indies' without anything to show for it. It's not as simple as saying that 'he's a bad man' - everyone in his situation acted similarly.

Considering the way he treated some of his crew, though, yes, I do think he was singularly amoral.

If you want a good summary of all of the history you don't learn in history class, read A People's History of America, by Howard Zinn. It's biased in the opposite way, along that scale, that conventional history books are. Oh, and it's a great read, much more interesting than conventional history books.

[tzzA]

(Yay for pirated quotes with no source (because I can't remember it.... >_< ))

History is written by the victor.


The conquistadors won, so they told their story the way they wanted to-biased towards them. Same thing happens all the time, over and over. Spiral theory of progress in time.
...a society where everyone was equal except for others who excelled, and were placed as the leaders? Where no one needed to worry about expenses, or other things, and were free in their pursuit of happiness. Where the benefits of a working class that were not subject to laws were used to benefit the whole human race. Where mankind could marvel at his own magnificence? That would probably be along the lines of true communism.

[mranderson]

That got off subject pretty fast...

Slavery -> Indians -> Columbus -> history (And yes I did learn this in school, even what you are saying.)

In short though slavery was started to spur others ahead in the economy. And because people can. For some reason people get a kick out of exercising dominion over others.

My idea I was hinting at earlier involves all three of the last segments of my other quote(only partially in the second one because I elaborated on that idea) You guys must think harder to get where it came from...