• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Uses of slaves - then and now

Go to CruxDreams.com
Historically, slaves were a rather in-demand item for some reasons.

  • Mass use of manual labour in most forms of production - first and foremost agriculture, which for most of history has been the occupation of most people to a degree we moderns just can't imagine, but also building, mining and just about everything else. Many of these jobs were difficult and dangerous, others simply monotonous - but with a slave workforce it didn't matter if anyone wanted to do them.
  • Domestically, there were few to no labour-saving devices - cooking, cleaning, laundry and many other tasks had to be done by hand. Given that even now housework (and childcare) can be a draining and demanding job, back then it was virtually backbreaking. And of course, people rich enough to afford slaves tended to have big houses... and every extra slave added to the amount of work, too.
  • And of course, there was the status aspect - the more and higher-quality slaves you had, the richer and more important you obviously were. As in every era, the proof of success was extravagance - or, from another perspective, waste. Having slaves with surprisingly narrow tasks, for instance (like one who's only job was to fetch water) while a less prosperous household might pile several of those on one slaves. And the finer specimens, the better!

In the modern era, the latter reason does still apply - indeed, the rich are still marked by their ability to offload their work onto (paid) others. However, the other reasons seem somewhat weakened... but perhaps not as much as you would think.

  • A great deal of agricultural and industrial work nowadays is done by machines more efficiently than would be possible by humans. HOWEVER, the continued existence of sweatshops. use of illegal immigrants to pick crops and so on suggests that labour laws may be a big part of an impediment, and rightsless labourers might still have considerable use, if not as much as they once did. Furthermore, there are also many jobs in business and the service industries which might be slave-performable - like shelf stackers, burger flippers and so on. It's said many companies already treat their low-level employees like slaves coughAmazoncough
  • Domestic work is a lot easier with the development of useful labour saving devices. However, housework is still seen as a tiresome task by most people, and offloaded by those who can afford it. So there probably is still demand there.
  • Status is more relevant than ever - the "keeping up with the Joneses" effect means that people will seek to own slaves even if they don't have nearly enough use for them to actually justify it. The real point is that everyone who's anyone has slaves... and who wants to be no-one?

Finally, of course, there are reasons which apply in any era - the sheer desire for power over others, to do anything you want to someone who's not allowed to say "no", to exercise one's darkest urges. But I'm sure the members of this forum understand such motivations well... not that any of us would, of course. (But how do we know?)

So, any reasons I missed? Or any other comment/discussion?
 
Also, slavery was not monolithic historically. I read somewhere that, when the word "slavery" is mentioned, a large number of people think of the slavery of Africans in America. Unlike slavery in America, slaves in the Ottoman Empire could rise to high rank, and slaves in ancient Rome had rights.

In modern times, there is also consensual, contract slavery wherein bottoms willingly submit to tops. In this kind of slavery, it is the bottom who has control.
 
Also, slavery was not monolithic historically. I read somewhere that, when the word "slavery" is mentioned, a large number of people think of the slavery of Africans in America. Unlike slavery in America, slaves in the Ottoman Empire could rise to high rank, and slaves in ancient Rome had rights.

In modern times, there is also consensual, contract slavery wherein bottoms willingly submit to tops. In this kind of slavery, it is the bottom who has control.
I think the latter is a bit outside the range of things, not really being acknowledged by society. But certainly there are many variations, and it can be hard to tell what's "slavery" and what isn't.
 
Groucho Marx once said this to workers who hadn’t been paid in weeks.

"You want to be wage slaves? Answer me that! Of course not! And what is it that makes wage slaves? Wages! I want you to be free!"
 
How about situation then slave works according to his/her qualifications, but value for the work goes to the owner.
A pretty straightforward method, yes. Although local law might be a complication, if the job they are qualified for is seen as "unsuitable" for a slave, or reserved for free workers due to union campaigning or so on.

This method can be done while also using the slave for other things outside of work hours, or allowing them to mostly do as they wish then (or even live independently). I've read that some masters in the antebellum South followed this practice. Even sometimes allowing a slave to save up a portion of their wages to buy their freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom