Is Slavery Profitable?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Is Slavery* Profitable?

In the 1970’s a work entitled “Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery” (http://books.google.com/books?id=ScpPBinpzwoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=time+on+the+cross+fogel#v=onepage&q=&f=false) by William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman emerged that challenged the prevailing view that slavery in America was an inefficient and irrational system that couldn’t compete with “free labor” in profitability. The book’s central message was that slavery was a profitable institution that helped the Southern economy grow substantially and was, in some instances, superior, in terms of efficiency, to Northern wage labor systems.


The book drew criticism mainly from some traditional (http://books.google.com/books?id=TUtFgWOISxMC&pg=PR19&dq=slavery+and+the+number%27s+game#v=onepage&q=&f=false) historians (http://books.google.com/books?id=47XnQnB9FnUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=objectivity+is+not+neutrality#v=onepage&q=&f=false), but also from several mostly on the left, who interpreted the book as justifying slavery. Recently, however, right-wingers, particularly libertarians (http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE7_2_2.pdf) and neo-confederates, have taken issue with the work because it seems to imply that slavery was a corollary of the marketplace. The book also seems to justify the Civil War or government intervention to end slavery. Unsurprisingly, according to the neoconfederate/libertarian/free market perspective, slavery would have waned without state action. Additionally, they argue that the main reason why slavery was able to persist for so long was because of government laws that prevented manumission(the act of emancipating) and also government subsidies that helped slave owners maintenance their slaves. So basically, slavery could not arise in a free marketplace, like everything else distasteful.


Today, slavery is illegal worldwide. However, it still endures in the form of sexual slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery), contract slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage), and pure chattel slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattel_slavery)in several places. This leads me to wonder whether or not Fogel and Engerman were indeed correct. If slavery still thrives, someone’s got to be profiting from it.

According to a wikipedia article on unfree labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour):








The International Labour Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Labour_Organization) estimates that:

At least 12.3 million people are victims of forced labour
more than 2.4 million have been trafficked
9.8 million are exploited by private agents
2.5 million are forced to work by the state or by rebel military groups
The profits from forced trafficked labour are estimated to be in excess of $32 billion.




So, is slavery profitable? The data seems to show that it can be, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Additionally, can it compete with "free labor" and could it exist, for any period of time, without government force?

Your thoughts?

*A note on usage: Unless mentioned otherwise, I use the term “slavery” here to denote chattel slavery. Since "wage slavery" is a term that's somewhat ambiguous, I'll leave it for another discussion.

[Skooma Addict]

Slavery can be profitable if you can get away with it. Nowadays in most cultures, the vast majority of people are very much against slavery. As you pointed out, most slavery nowadays is done in secrecy. Think about it, people wouldn't kidnap others and use them as slaves if they were not going to profit. Some people are just evil.

As bad as it is, slavery nowadays is not nearly as bad as government backed slavery was. Of coarse, there are many reasons why this is so. But one thing is certain, governments are failing when it comes to stopping slavery.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

lavery nowadays is not nearly as bad as government backed slavery was.Government-backed? Er, please be a little more descriptive. Slavery was originally an extension of economic forces - specifically, landlordship, not government intervention.

Yes, slavery is profitable, hence why indentured servitude transformed into lifelong bondage. Slavists were not isolated from market forces. But at the same time, it retards innovation from within the enslaved population: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

[Skooma Addict]

Government-backed? Er, please be a little more descriptive. Slavery was originally an extension of economic forces - specifically, landlordship, not government intervention.

Throughout history, governments have supported or sponsored slavery. Look at Rome and Egypt for example. Also, many times in history when an army would conquer a city, the citizens of that city would become slaves. But nowadays slavery is not nearly as profitable. In this global economy, Slaves just could not compete with today's modern and professional workers.

But there still are slaves as you mentioned. But these slaves are operating in the underground economy, and governments everywhere are failing to help them.

(Also, on A side note, I discovered this)

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11341.aspx

(I didn't start that discussion or comment in it, I just thought you all might be interested)

[Jazzratt]

It's not all that profitable for the slaves, really.

[Raisa]

Of course slavery is profitable.....but the whole thing is in this day and age, where our ecomonic systems have evolved, slavery has become a very costly institution in itself to maintain.

THe First World grandly benifits from the slavery of the third world, and AMerica for example- has a military base in every part of the world.


BUT ON THE SAME NOTE...

To maintain a slave, you got to clothe it, feed it, house it....in this era we live in they UNDERPAY people and they cant even afford to sustain themselves really unless they do something else on the side.

[New Tet]

Capitalist wage slavery is more profitable than chattel slavery if you consider that workers under wage slavery feel they have some stake in maintaining their condition whereas under a system of chattel slavery, in an industrial context, would simply invite the slaves to sabotage production.

In fact, it is well documented that slaves in antebellum America often sabotaged production by damaging farm machinery and tools in order to get out work.

[danyboy27]

of course its profitable!
china is a brilliant exemple of it

[Scary Monster]

One would think that this question didnt even need a discussion :tongue_smilie:. Of course slavery is profitable. The capitalist tries to move as close to slavery as possible for their workers, for better profit margins- maximizing profit and minimizing liablities and cost. its the whole reason for outsourcing jobs to third world countries! Im sure its obvious that if the cappies could legally utilize slavery then they wouldnt hesitate to do it.

[Green Dragon]

There were challenges to Fogelman's work- and I wish to hell i could the names of them: The objections I do recall:

1. The slave had to be fed, clothed, housed and receive medical care. This was not only a matter of simple economics for the slaveowner, but was required by law. The capitalist employing free labor did not have this burden.

2. How long did it take for a slave to earn back the wealth it cost to purchase and maintain him or her? No real consensus has been settled upon, and of course it was inmaterial to the capitalist employing free labor.

3. The narrative of the slave working sunup to sundown six days per week is largely untrue. It was the case during planting and harvesting (as was true for any farmer and farm worker), but the rest of the year there was always a lot of down time. How efficient is it having to maintain a bunch of workers who are not producung anything? Not very.

Slavery became a "part of life" for the South. By 1860, it was not simply an economic arrangement. There was indeed distortions to the market (for example, by 1860 most southern states had banned the freeing of a slave without government approval).

Hinton Helper in 1857 wrote a book which condemned slavery from purely economic grounds, and it harmed the South. It was largely banned in the South.

But note- Those debates on the economics of slavery concern slavery in the USA, which was far milder than what existed in the Carribean and South America.

[Green Dragon]

One would think that this question didnt even need a discussion :tongue_smilie:. Of course slavery is profitable. The capitalist tries to move as close to slavery as possible for their workers, for better profit margins- maximizing profit and minimizing liablities and cost. its the whole reason for outsourcing jobs to third world countries! Im sure its obvious that if the cappies could legally utilize slavery then they wouldnt hesitate to do it.

One would have to wonder what a socialist community, which sought to minimise profit and maximise cost, would look like.

[Dean]

One would have to wonder what a socialist community, which sought to minimise profit and maximise cost, would look like.

Actually, a socialist economy does try to minimise cost, since it doesn't rely on a wage system. Profit doesn't enter into the equation because the producer-consumer relationship isn't a coercive or exploitative one in which profit has any value.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Yeah, it's profitable. So's weapons-dealing, child-pornography, dog-fighting, sweat-shops, etc. The question should be: Is it right?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery is profitable. Here is a trap you have to avoid, I think, as a leftist. Some people tend to argue to maximize profit, you have to make everyone as happy as possible.

Therefore, reformists aren't worried. Businesses will just switch to practices that result in happy employees and greater efficiency. In some cases, this kind of attitude works. However, the elite aren't going to create a paradise because it somehow "works in their favor."

I'd argue that communism would maximize profit as a whole, but it won't maximize profit for the elite in power now so we can't just constantly hope the elite will implement fairer business practices.

I think it's important to admit that, in our historical time, slavery can probably be profitable. In the best of all situations, it wouldn't be necessary. Making VCRs might be profitable at a historical moment. Ideally, it's probably not necessary. (Though I'd apply a definitely to slavery, so the example might not be as strong as it could be).

[Jazzratt]

If slavery weren't profitable how did it exist as an industry for so long (and what is the incentive for those who still carry it out illegally?)?

[AntifaAustralia]

Egyptians made the pyramid from slaves.
the Romans made slaves out of criminals and prisoners of war

Today The Americans (and 1st world nations) exploit foreign cheap labour from Mexico (and other developing nations) and keep the profits in the nation of oppressor! THIS IS SLAVERY-like injustice too!

even communist countries use slave labour. Labour camps by soviet union and north korea today.

in a way stalin used the soviet people like slaves to benefit the people of the country. forced suicidal community capitalism anyone? haha funny shit ay? beneficial? soviet union greatly increased health, education, industy and tech, and of course at a community cost of artificial famines.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Outside of sexual traffiking, slavery isn't that profitable and was dying a slow death in the US and would have gone by the wayside even if the civil war hadn't happened.

Of course, that's only in one instance in which the importation of new slaves was illegal. In the british west indies and spanish territories, it was profitable to simply work slaves to the death and buy new ones. However, in the US, that would be a retarded financial plan and would cost a lot of money. This also explains why the US actually had a relatively small % of the total number of slaves when compared to britain, spain, and portugal from the 1500s forward (ie, a small % who lived in the US).

The simple fact is, dangerous work being done in the south, for example moving bales of cotton up a gangplank onto a barge, wouldn't be done by slaves. Just like if he got sick and died, if the slave falls over the side and drowns the owner has lost significant investment. Which is why Irish normall did that kind of work, they were much cheaper and easier to replace.

Mexican laborers are also not slaves. Their employers don't have to feed them, clothe them, or give them a to place to stay. Their labor wouldn't be as desirable if it entailed those obligations.

edited by me b/c I fogot 'dangerous'. doesn't really make sense otherwise.

[Conquer or Die]

Slavery is alive and well in most of the third world. Take the Congo, for example, where the choice between death and food is forty mile hikes between an airport and a coltan mine carrying a hundred pounds of rock that is used to create electronic entertainment devices for budding humanitarians playing world of warcraft in Starbucks.

White slavery, where women are taken to the middle east for sex, is a problem but only a small part of the real slavery that exists in most of the world.

[AntifaAustralia]

Outside of sexual traffiking, slavery isn't that profitable and was dying a slow death in the US and would have gone by the wayside even if the civil war hadn't happened.

Of course, that's only in one instance in which the importation of new slaves was illegal. In the british west indies and spanish territories, it was profitable to simply work slaves to the death and buy new ones. However, in the US, that would be a retarded financial plan and would cost a lot of money. This also explains why the US actually had a relatively small % of the total number of slaves when compared to britain, spain, and portugal from the 1500s forward (ie, a small % who lived in the US).

The simple fact is, work being done in the south, for example moving bales of cotton up a gangplank onto a barge, wouldn't be done by slaves. Just like if he got sick and died, if the slave falls over the side and drowns the owner has lost significant investment. Which is why Irish normall did that kind of work, they were much cheaper and easier to replace.

Mexican laborers are also not slaves. Their employers don't have to feed them, clothe them, or give them a to place to stay. Their labor wouldn't be as desirable if it entailed those obligations.

Slavery is a type of nurture and care system? so some sort of capitalist compassion like Dole welfare payments? makes sense, i agree.

you make a good point that nationalist labour work overseas is equal to and even sometimes worse than slavery!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Slavery is a type of nurture and care system? so some sort of capitalist compassion like Dole welfare payments? makes sense, i agree.

In a sense. If the institution of slavery was still in practice in the US today, slaves would no doubt be guaranteed 3 hearty meals a day, good medical care, and a place to sleep.

It's much cheaper to simply pay someone minimum wage in which they can't afford all of those things.


you make a good point that nationalist labour work overseas is equal to and even sometimes worse than slavery!

Overseas is obviously different. Paying a pakistani pre-adoloscent to make tennis shoes is probably the cheapest option of all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Slavery might be profitable for individual slave owners. But it is not productive or profitable as a system of production when compared to industrial capitalism. Capitalism is dynamic and so it needs to import laborers into one area and then downsize them or shift them to other activities. Chattel slavery works if you are doing one kind of production all the time like growing crops.

But if you can privatize the personal upkeep of your laborers and their offspring, and you only need some of them all the time and the rest some of the time, it's better just to pay them a wage and use them while they are young and healthy and then let their children or the state or a freezing cold snap during the winter take care of them after that.

[spiltteeth]

I dunno. The CEO of Wall-mart seems to make out.