Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => CCP Public Library => Topic started by: Lyn Farel on 16 Feb 2013, 05:07
-
Since the fact that the Caldari find the practice of slavery inefficient economically has been added to PF, it seems that a lot of Caldari players and more generally a lot of players use that as a fact.
I am far from being an economist so I may be mistaken here, but I do not really understand what makes them believe so. How is a slave less efficient than a paid worker ? I say, it can be less efficient, but it can also be more efficient. Why would we still be using slavery in a lot of countries IRL if that was not efficient ? Why would the previous ages, from Antiquity to XIXth century, resort to it as well, and so widely ? Religion is not the only factor at play, and has not even been considered by some civilizations still widely using it.
I have rarely seen the argument that slaves do not participate in the market since they do not have the power to consume products and thus, do not take part in the global economy. But they still have to be paid for their living, like any worker, by their masters. Their masters consume for them. Some might say that slaves barely need a couch and a few bits of food so that's not much compared to the needs of a paid worker. And yet, a lot of paid workers do not have lives more comfortable than slaves themselves, so their buying power is not really better. And we also have rich slaves, or slaves living in luxury, in the equation, that may account for a lot of money like any rich worker does.
But when you want to be efficient as an employer, you generally don't pay your average base worker much, the same way low end slaves are only afforded the bare minimum to live. Honestly, I have a hard time seeing the difference in terms of efficiency.
I would argue that it's even more efficient to have slaves (like in Antiquity) when you just need basic manpower. If you need more manpower because your own is limited in number, you go invade your neighbors and abduct what you need.
So, yes, I am a little confused about that PF bit.
-
The Caldari find the practice of slavery inefficient economically.
That is a subjective point of view that does not make it an objective Truth.
The Gallente find slavery objectionable because of moral reasons.
The Minmatar do not like slavery because they are the ones being enslaved.
I think the Caldari point of view on slavery comes from the idea that automated production is more efficient than one where there is an actual workforce doing the production.
What this point of view does not take into account is the fact that you need serious infrastructure in place to create the automated production facilities where ever you build them.
Slaves are a very mobile workforce that adapts into any situation without the need of creating complex infrastructure to sustain them.
Where a factory needs massive amounts of power, technology, education and resources to build, a workshop full of slaves pretty much runs on food, beds and guns.
-
Well yes, that's a good answer I think. That's just not really explained in PF, thus my question in the first place.
-
It's really quite basic; slavery fails economically because it's a zero-sum game; one person becomes richer literally to the amount he can extract labor from another. Fair economic exchange is a non-zero-sum game.
Which do you think can generate more value - a thousand laborers under the whip, forced to minimize their own consumption, or a thousand people each trying to maximize their own happiness? Even if nine-hundred-ninety-nine end up being day-laborers with barely more production or better conditions, if even one of them has a bright idea or talent she can use to make some money by saving the rest time, effort or hardship, they will be collectively better off.
-
The fair economic exchange is still done between non slaves.
-
Yes, and that's lovely, but it still means that you're in a worse situation than one in which everyone was doing it.
-
I think it's because the Caldari methods of production focus on maximum automation of their manufacturing. It is in fact more efficient just to have an automated factory mass producing and assembling products with a small crew of engineers overseeing the process and acting as redundancy in case of failure. Why hire five thousand people for a factory when you can just have an automatic assembly line and hire five people to take care of it? This works in the State because it has a small population (Need to maximize the potential productivity of every citizen to keep up) which is generally well educated (They have to be in order to maximize their potential productivity) and which has built up the infrastructure required to support the sort of high-tech industry the State is engaged in.
What it doesn't take into account is that such factories are extremely expensive to build and the initial investments can be huge (Some of the microchip factories today cost from billions to tens of billions to build) and if they fail because no one buys the product the company can take quite a hit to its bottom line.
What slavery offers the Empire I think is lower initial costs to produce goods than in the State or Federation since instead of throwing money at the problem you can just throw people at it. That industry is probably also far less centralized without the sort of "Mega Factories" State or Fed companies invest in so there's less breakdowns in the supply chains in case of a failure in one part of its industrial web since they're likely spread out in small to medium size factories dotted all over the Empire.
Where that system fails however is that you can't throw slaves at problems in industry requiring real knowledge, expertise and training up to a point, and that's why the Empire finds its relationship with the State so fruitful because they are purchasing that knowledge, expertise, and training required to stay competitive technologically and industrially against others in the cluster.
Something like that I guess.
-
I seem to recall a classical Roman writer objected to slavery because free men would disdain useful occupations as being "slave's work" and beneath them. He felt that slavery encouraged idleness amongst the plebians, not to mention a lack of work for them.
I'm not enough of a classical scholar to know who he was though.
-
Yes, and that's lovely, but it still means that you're in a worse situation than one in which everyone was doing it.
Yes but no in my opinion, since slaves are mostly taken from neighbors (Reclaiming, etc). Which means they are technically not part of your base demographics, much like in non slaver entities where automation is needed for such tasks when possible.
Of course though, this has changed heavily since the Amarr Empire can not take slaves outside anymore. Which makes the slavery situation a lot less... profitable, indeed. Which could incidentaly explain also why the Amarr are eager to buy technology from the Caldari for example, to compensate that lack of base labor manpower.
Not sure with the New Reclaiming if that's back to the old days or not, though.
I think it's because the Caldari methods of production focus on maximum automation of their manufacturing. It is in fact more efficient just to have an automated factory mass producing and assembling products with a small crew of engineers overseeing the process and acting as redundancy in case of failure. Why hire five thousand people for a factory when you can just have an automatic assembly line and hire five people to take care of it? This works in the State because it has a small population (Need to maximize the potential productivity of every citizen to keep up) which is generally well educated (They have to be in order to maximize their potential productivity) and which has built up the infrastructure required to support the sort of high-tech industry the State is engaged in.
What it doesn't take into account is that such factories are extremely expensive to build and the initial investments can be huge (Some of the microchip factories today cost from billions to tens of billions to build) and if they fail because no one buys the product the company can take quite a hit to its bottom line.
What slavery offers the Empire I think is lower initial costs to produce goods than in the State or Federation since instead of throwing money at the problem you can just throw people at it. That industry is probably also far less centralized without the sort of "Mega Factories" State or Fed companies invest in so there's less breakdowns in the supply chains in case of a failure in one part of its industrial web since they're likely spread out in small to medium size factories dotted all over the Empire.
Where that system fails however is that you can't throw slaves at problems in industry requiring real knowledge, expertise and training up to a point, and that's why the Empire finds its relationship with the State so fruitful because they are purchasing that knowledge, expertise, and training required to stay competitive technologically and industrially against others in the cluster.
Something like that I guess.
Yes, I agree and have a similar view, however we should not forget that even the Amarr Empire or the Minmatar Republic have their own high tech and mass production plants. I really doubt that Imperial Armaments, the Imperial Navy, Carthum and Viziam build their ships only with the bare hands of their slaves, Goa'uld style. They should also have their own expensive production factories. Maybe not as automatized as a Caldari or especially a Gallente one would tend to be, but still with a lot of robotics and :productionstuff:.
I also am pretty sure that the Amarr Empire is only realizing that their technology used in everyday lives could use some of what they can find in the neighborhood, like the Caldari state. Thus why they invest heavily in it.
But they are not backwards either. They have their own military high tech, their leading companies on implant tech, etc.
-
Yes, and that's lovely, but it still means that you're in a worse situation than one in which everyone was doing it.
Yes but no in my opinion, since slaves are mostly taken from neighbors (Reclaiming, etc). Which means they are technically not part of your base demographics, much like in non slaver entities where automation is needed for such tasks when possible.
Well, yes; if you view slaves as a resource, rather than a part of your society. Which, from an economic point of view, is akin to thinking the minerals you mine are free; technically true, but does not take into account the fact that you could be more wealthy, individually and as a whole, if you'd organize things differently.
Another angle may be helpful - which group of people would you think would be more productive as a whole: one of two thousand where everyone is free to contribute or consume as best they can manage, or one of a thousand slaves and a thousand freemen, where there's a fifty percent chance for everyone that no matter your talents or preferences, you'll be pickin' cotton?
-
That's precisely where I do not agree. Taking into account that the average worker and the average slave produce the same wealth, then be it 1000 free workers contributing and consuming, or 10 slavers with 100 slaves each, the 10 slavers contributing and consuming, that is more or less the same to me. Since the 10 slavers will have the cumulated wealth of 100 each.
I would tend to agree if the slaver was alone and had nobody to trade with.
-
I'm by no means an expert on the issue, but I would echo the automation thing as being probably the first and foremost reason.
Another thing to consider would be task force specialization. In an employment model, an individual can pursue employment suited to their aptitudes and interests, in a slavery model the position of the slave is determined by the will of the overseer and the need of the "business." The individual placed into such a position may not be the best to fill the position. You then have the fact that one person (the Holder) is in charge of overseeing all production and task assignment, which is inherently less efficient than letting individuals pursue their own strengths.
-
That's exactly what I'm getting at, Malcolm; the point is that people aren't completely interchangeable. If there a slave around who's moderately better at gold-filligreeing cathedrals than the Amarrian commoner who holds the job, and that commoner'd be about as efficient picking cotton as the slave - that's waste, right there.
On top of that, you get the overhead of controlling slaves - dismissed earlier as "cheap," but even a few percent of overhead are killing in that regard -- someone who is guarding slaves, where from an economic perspective those could as well be low-paid workers needing no more encouragement than a paycheck, is literally wasting their life.
On top of that, you have the problem that austerity tends to decrease total wealth and productivity, rather than the other way around. Slaves eating gruel and not being allowed any luxuries means there's a lot of potential Amarrian toy-makers and restaurant chefs out of a job.
-
Hmmm... interesting topic.
I think the Caldari economy is structured around the vast majority of the population being able to spend its own money. When new technological gadgets or premium holo-channels are launched, there is a massive middle class that can spend money on those things, giving profits to the companies and letting them turn a profit. Even the lowest of classes in the State will be gambling and buying drugs, feeding a peripheral economic system. That's not the case with the Empire.
If a massive chunk of the Empire's working population doesn't have purchasing power, there may never be much of a mass market economy developed. If the only people with the money to buy computers and cars are nobles, there will never be a push to create more efficient and cheaper computers and cars - only bigger and more powerful ones. That means that entire sectors of technological development simply never enter the economy.
There's also the "trickle-down economy" problem, in that it doesn't work. Wealthy people don't spend money - that's why they are wealthy. If you give $100 to a poor family they will spend it - they have to spend it, because they probably have bills to pay. If you give $100 to a rich family, they might just put it in the bank. It's more expensive to be poor, because you can't afford things that last. You can't afford credit, and you can't afford insurance. That means that you become an excellent market entity - spending every dime you earn, feeding the economy. A person who buys a pair of $70 boots that last for 10 years will contribute less to the economy than someone who has to buy a pair of $10 shoes every year.
A slaver might take 99% of the wealth his slaves produce, but he's only going to spend 50% of that.
A Caldari employer might take 20% of the wealth his employees produce, but not only is he going to reinvest most of that, his employees are also almost guaranteed to spend their 80% buying things.
Also, reliance on slavery forces you to stick to simple outdated methods of labour simply because they are easy to oversee and measure, and in denying a large amount of people education you are potentially missing out on brilliant scientists and engineers who could spur invention (which in turn drives the economy).
tl;dr: Slavery favours the rich elite who do not necessarily drive the economy, whereas a free market with high purchasing power in the populace puts more money into actual circulation. It also spurs other fields of technology and innovation, which will stop the economy from stagnating.
PS: the irony is, of course, that it was the Empire that had to bail out the State when it ran out of money.
-
Part of the problem is the inherent problem of people not wanting to be slaves. Puts a limit on the kinds of work a slave can do, and the kind of skills a slaveholder would want to teach a slave.
If you train a slave to be technically savvy and literate, youre often training a future insurgent, not a slave. Its not by accident that teaching a slave to read was a crime in many slave holding countries.
-
But they are not backwards either. They have their own military high tech, their leading companies on implant tech, etc.
I never said they were. What I am saying is that the Empire can afford inefficiencies in its economic system compared to the State because of its sheer size. It's a comparative thing, the State has the smallest population compared to either the Fed or Empire so in order to achieve the same productivity levels each citizen in the State has to, comparatively, produce more than the Fed or Empire. This is done through an emphasis on education, technological innovation and automation to name a few in order to maximize the output of every citizen in the State to levels above that of either the Fed or Empire - and this is in the PF, even with a significantly smaller population than either the Fed or Empire the State remains only just behind both (depending on metrics used). What drives the State and the reason it's so competitive is that it's purely a matter of survival, if it doesn't focus on efficiency, productivity and technological innovation then it risks falling behind and potentially no longer existing (At least in the eyes of its citizens) if the Fed or Empire attack it.
As for the efficiencies of slavery in the Empire that really depends on the sector they're employed in. Most of what I've read is that they typically get used in agrarian pursuits which really doesn't provide much if most of the economy in New Eden is driven by high-technology goods and manufacturing does it?
Or perhaps another analogy: What's more efficient in farming, a hundred peasants harvesting the fields by hand or a single combine harvester operated by a single man who can plan its harvest pattern via gps which then frees him for other work?
Edit: At the end of the day those hundred peasants and single automated combine harvester will still do the same amount of work in the same time, it's just that those peasants are like the Imperial slaves and the combine harvester is an example of State automation.
-
I think we are underselling the willingness of a society to have highly educated slaves.
If we assume that the Empire is built on a Roman model of slavery vs the more modern models, then there would be many many highly educated slaves (in Rome, it is recorded that Greek slaves were the tutors of the children of a wealthy family for instance).
I think the Caldari dislike of slavery is firmly rooted in its origins on Caldari Prime where the idea of owning another person breaks down when the contribution of everyone to the survival of the community is paramount. Modern economic theory simply doesn't factor into the equation for most Caldari - slavery is some jagii idea practiced by the Amarr (and ancient Gallente & Minmatar).
PS: the irony is, of course, that it was the Empire that had to bail out the State when it ran out of money.
This was a result of TEA and not any actual economic thought.
-
I think we are underselling the willingness of a society to have highly educated slaves.
If we assume that the Empire is built on a Roman model of slavery vs the more modern models, then there would be many many highly educated slaves (in Rome, it is recorded that Greek slaves were the tutors of the children of a wealthy family for instance).
Yes, it's made clear in several sources that many Amarrian slaves are educated. While there are the plantation and mining slaves that have very lowbrow work, there's also slave scientists, slave priests, slave teachers, and so on. Even the farm/plantation work is not done by manual labor. The slaves are trained to operate the proper machinery.
Slaves in the Empire serve a number of diverse functions. While the most common image is of Minmatar slaves tending fields of Amarr wheat under an intense sun, menial labor is only a part of slave duties. Particularly skilled, talented, and pious slaves may receive extensive education and training and perform duties normally held by respected professionals in other nations.
Of course, the majority of slaves do fill the tasks that are considered beneath or too dangerous for others in the Empire. Slaves are the primary workforce on Amarr agricultural worlds[29][33] and mining colonies[9]. Agricultural work is strenuous, but relatively safe. Slaves spend the majority of their days tending and harvesting crops, plowing fields, and eliminating pests. Contrary to the popular image, not all of these tasks are done by hand. While certain crops do require manual harvesting, many tasks are performed by slaves utilizing machines.
[...]
Slave children that show talent are often educated in Amarr schools.[10] Slaves educated in this way can wind up in a variety of jobs. Some become civil servants, working on behalf of their masters in local government jobs. Others are educated even further and become involved in academic or religious work.[21] Some slaves have been known to be experts in ancient, extinct languages or knowledgeable enough to invent new polymer synthesis techniques.[36] These slaves can receive a great degree of personal freedom and movement, and maintain lifestyles that can be better than many commoners.
-Slavery, EVElopedia (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Uses)
-
Economists argue that slavery is inefficient in all but a few instances for the reasons cited above, but also for three others: slaves have no motivation to work other than to avoid punishment and so are likely to do as little as they can get away with (not to mention, as many American slaveholders complained, employing techniques of passive resistance such as 'accidentally' breaking tools and machinery); slaves can be punished, but not fired, so slaveholders are basically stuck with their workforce, however incompetent it may be; and slaves are an expense all year round, not just when work is required to be done.
The economic advantage of slavery is only apparent in situations where free labor is unavailable: that is, in places and for jobs that no-one would willingly do, but slaves can be forced to undertake, such as the Caribbean sugar industry, where conditions were so harsh life expectancy was measured in months.
Orange is right, Amarr slavery is explicitly described as including educated and trained slaves who work, for example, in civil service jobs, but the inefficiency arguments above still apply to educated 'professional class' slaves. For example, if you have a slave doctor to tend to the medical needs of your family, you have to feed, clothe and house her all year round, not just pay her when you're sick; you're stuck with her medical care (certainly without paying again for another doctor); and your slave is not motivated to provide you with the best possible care to ensure return custom.
-
It's been my impression that the State has needed to take extreme measures to remain competitive with their adversaries, primarily with the Federation to avoid being re-absorbed. Due to their smaller size and (I assume) population (see: tube program), they don't have access to a large uneducated workforce like the Empire does, and importation would cost money.
Since I'm guessing that their infrastructure is already designed to be a high-tech manufacturing/agriculture society due to their shortage of workers, the cost to either 'educate' a larger number of slaves to perform the work or restructure their society to accommodate low-tech manufacturing/agriculture would also be cost-prohibitive. One also has to factor in the socioeconomic impact of introducing a 'slave caste' into a meritocratic society.
-
One of the biggest inefficiencies with a Slave based economy is that of a lack of flexibility when it comes to developing markets and technologies.
New discoveries in materials, production methods and production techniques can greatly alter the skillset that is needed to produce an item of stock even in an established industry. For example, wood used to be heavily used in the construction of automobiles, but iterative changes in design and manufacturing now means that very few manufacturers maintain a staff of carpenters.
In the Caldari State, this would lead to the position of Carpenters simply being made redundant. Former Carpenters with transferrable skills would find new jobs and those without would be forced to retrain or accept more menial roles.
In the Amarrian Empire there would be a tendency to keep using the older production method, since a large body of Slaves with those skills already exist. A Holder wishing to move to the new production methods would have to hire skilled workers and either pay to retrain his Carpenter slaves in the new techniques or train new slaves in those skills and find other work for his Carpenters. The broad difference between the experience of the Caldari Executive and the Amarrian Holder is that the Amarrian Holder is obliged to fully support his slaves during this retraining process, whilst the Caldari Executive is immediately rid of the burden of his redundant workers.
This pattern is felt throughout a Slave based economy. The worker bears the onus of supporting themself and their family and in being the most economic worker that they can. To this end workers will budget their own households, often bear the cost of new training in order to secure a more economically rewarding job and constantly seek to be relevant, economically, out of their own self interest.
Slaves, on the other hand, will perform precisely the work demanded of them to lowest quality that is enforced. They will not seek to innovate within their function, unless it is to achieve the minimum standard required at less effort. They have no investment in remaining relevant, since Amarrian law does not allow for their Master to do anything more than sell them to another - where they most likely will perform identical work under identical conditions.
-
While its true that the Amarrian Empire has educated and skilled slaves, Im sure there are huge inefficiencies in simply monitoring and supervising these slaves. The problem with pointing to the Roman model for slavery and take it whole sale is that it fails to take into effects technology and its impact. In the Roman era, a lone slave trained in engineering and physics and given the right materials could likely build a water wheel. Likewise, he could sabotage a bridge or a building or some such
In EVE, a lone slave trained in engineering and physics and given the right materials could build very, very powerful explosives. Given the chance, that lone slave could sabotage a massive communication and information network, a space stations orbit, or set of an industrial accident.
I dont think Amarrian slaveholders could be as liberal when it came to teaching their slaves various skills as their Roman counterparts, at least without significant (and likely costly and inefficient and stifling) safeguards.
-
Which is why only the most loyal and well-behaved slaves would get the education, while those who are stubborn and resistant get sent to the mining colonies. I also would imagine that first generation slaves would never receive that kind of education, it'd be limited to those who have been enslaved for generations, thus having become brainwashed by the culture and having less desire to rebel against it.
Chained to the Sky (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=25-12-08-b) is a good chronicle for reading about slave education, and also about the kind of freedoms they have. The well-educated, highly placed slaves don't constantly have an overseer over their shoulder cracking a whip, and seem to be able to travel to and from work on their own.
-
I've always found the canon Caldari argument that slavery = inefficient to be odd, because any devotee to the Austrian school of economics or FA Hayek would argue that the baseline Caldari worker is in no better condition than a serf in Amarr space.
-
Another point that is being missed here is that there will be a certain baseline standard of education in certain topics, such as religion and history, for lower-tier slaves in the Amarrian model. This demands an entirely separate and fundamentally different education system, which has to be supported and developed on its own, and which slaves will then spend a good portion of their day involved in rather than "productive" tasks.
Then we can get into the separate medical systems, separate travel arrangements, et cetera. Running all of these independent systems on top of whatever arrangements there are for commoners (let alone whatever Holders choose to make for themselves) will lend itself to a certain degree of inherent inefficiency.
-
I've always found the canon Caldari argument that slavery = inefficient to be odd, because any devotee to the Austrian school of economics or FA Hayek would argue that the baseline Caldari worker is in no better condition than a serf in Amarr space.
But there is a difference between slave and indebted employee. There are clearly areas in the State where an employee is paid in mega-script and spends it all on things supplied by the mega and its allies. It isn't like the manager wants to pay them much more than is needed to live off of (especially if their skill set is relatively common) and for many people that is often sufficient. And the manager knows what it costs to eat at the Cafeteria, rent the Hab Unit, etc plus 0.5-1% for savings or what not.
-
I've always found the canon Caldari argument that slavery = inefficient to be odd, because any devotee to the Austrian school of economics or FA Hayek would argue that the baseline Caldari worker is in no better condition than a serf in Amarr space.
Dav, that's an interesting point, one of the articles explicitly says that living conditions for most Caldari workers are no more luxurious than those for many slave in the Amarr Empire, in large part because of the Caldari cultural disapproval of spending money on material luxuries, with most Caldari spending their disposable income on gambling instead.
There is also a reference to the view held by many Caldari that worker's conditions have declined since contact with the Amarr Empire due to cultural contamination.
-
I've always found the canon Caldari argument that slavery = inefficient to be odd, because any devotee to the Austrian school of economics or FA Hayek would argue that the baseline Caldari worker is in no better condition than a serf in Amarr space.
But there is a difference between slave and indebted employee. There are clearly areas in the State where an employee is paid in mega-script and spends it all on things supplied by the mega and its allies. It isn't like the manager wants to pay them much more than is needed to live off of (especially if their skill set is relatively common) and for many people that is often sufficient. And the manager knows what it costs to eat at the Cafeteria, rent the Hab Unit, etc plus 0.5-1% for savings or what not.
That isn't any different from the contemporary American minimum wage worker who is stuck in that socio-economic class with little to no hope of climbing the socio-economic ladder, and is supplemented with Food Stamps et al.
edit: At the same time, there is also little difference between a serf and an "indebted employee". See: sharecroppers in post-Civil War USA and hacienda sharecropping in the Philippines.
-
And yet recent PF states that the average standard of living for the Caldari worker is the second-best in the Cluster.
Admittedly, this means they only beat out the average of an Empire pulled down by slavery and the average of a Republic pulled down by poverty-stricken refugee camps, but still - it directly contradicts the idea that the average Caldari worked is only as well off as the average Amarrian slave.
Again, a large part of the inefficiency comes from the centralised nature of a slave economy, the number of personnel that must be used to guard a slave workforce and the inflexibility of a slave economy.
-
I have no doubt the Imperial system is woefully inefficient, wasteful, and generally awful for most people unless you are on the upper ends of the pyramid.
The Empire is also used to having an extremely insular and 100% insulated economic system where these inefficiencies are irrelevant. It's only when you start trading with other empires and having their products penetrate your markets that you have to worry about those sorts of things.
Contact and trade with the other Empires is likely causing all manor of economic upheaval. I expect quite a bit of economic protectionism and outright embargos from various Holders on a variety of fronts.
When the Caldari can make x billion widgets in a factory hyper-efficiently and sell them at cut rates, it would obviously blow any similar Imperial objects out of the water. In an open, fair market.
So far the Empire is still a relatively closed, unfair market.
-
Chained to the Sky (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=25-12-08-b) is a good chronicle for reading about slave education, and also about the kind of freedoms they have. The well-educated, highly placed slaves don't constantly have an overseer over their shoulder cracking a whip, and seem to be able to travel to and from work on their own.
Glad you mentioned that Chronicle, because one important line is in.
It was said in the high halls of Amarr society that Torsad-Laur was the only slave-inhabited quarter where the gentry could walk at night without being attacked – and where, moreover, one could even have a conversation with a slave, if one were inclined toward an evening’s debasement.
The Chronicle represents the exception, not the norm.
-
Aye, it does. It would be nice to have a chronicle that details the life in "common" slave quarters, rather than just the exceptional ones.
Though, while looking through chronicles for more information, I did find this little news article, which is more on topic as it specifically states the canon explanations for the economic inferiority of slaves:
"Yet in recent years the Dark Amarrians have become increasingly frustrated by the lack of economical benefits provided by slavery in a modern world. The cost for raring, supervising and guarding slaves is only marginally lower than the productivity of the slave, especially when one bears in mind that the productivity is already hampered by the slaves being resentful, inexperienced and, frequently, unhealthy."
- News: Khanid Kingdom strenuously denies ill treatment of slaves (http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=334&tid=4)
-
And yet recent PF states that the average standard of living for the Caldari worker is the second-best in the Cluster.
Admittedly, this means they only beat out the average of an Empire pulled down by slavery and the average of a Republic pulled down by poverty-stricken refugee camps, but still - it directly contradicts the idea that the average Caldari worked is only as well off as the average Amarrian slave.
Again, a large part of the inefficiency comes from the centralised nature of a slave economy, the number of personnel that must be used to guard a slave workforce and the inflexibility of a slave economy.
To clarify, I didn't mean PPP, being well-off or anything in my comparison of a Caldari worker's condition to that of an Amarr slave. I was referring to their productivity levels and the state of their socio-economic mobility.
-
Socio-economic mobility is also well documented in the State - with the point being made that Executives can give birth to Janitors and Janitors rise to the ranks of Executives.
Of course, you're right that the old, powerful families have effectively managed to do such a good PR job that the public are fooled into thinking that they have their jobs through meritocracy, but that's only the highest level.
The equivalent in the Empire would be of a slave that can make it as far as a lower ranked Holder, but no further.
-
I have no doubt the Imperial system is woefully inefficient, wasteful, and generally awful for most people unless you are on the upper ends of the pyramid.
The Empire is also used to having an extremely insular and 100% insulated economic system where these inefficiencies are irrelevant. It's only when you start trading with other empires and having their products penetrate your markets that you have to worry about those sorts of things.
Contact and trade with the other Empires is likely causing all manor of economic upheaval. I expect quite a bit of economic protectionism and outright embargos from various Holders on a variety of fronts.
When the Caldari can make x billion widgets in a factory hyper-efficiently and sell them at cut rates, it would obviously blow any similar Imperial objects out of the water. In an open, fair market.
So far the Empire is still a relatively closed, unfair market.
That's what I find interesting in the Empire situation. It makes me think a little about the RL situation of western economies vs China. The latter has enormous demographics and a sheer productive power but at the same time is still struggling to catch up with western technologies, patents, and overall quality. We are even hearing these days of chinese corps buying out a lot of declining european companies (the crisis and all) where they are suspected to do so just for "technological theft".
However, it does not necessarily makes slavery less efficient. But on the long run, yeah, I think.
Though, while looking through chronicles for more information, I did find this little news article, which is more on topic as it specifically states the canon explanations for the economic inferiority of slaves:
"Yet in recent years the Dark Amarrians have become increasingly frustrated by the lack of economical benefits provided by slavery in a modern world. The cost for raring, supervising and guarding slaves is only marginally lower than the productivity of the slave, especially when one bears in mind that the productivity is already hampered by the slaves being resentful, inexperienced and, frequently, unhealthy."
- News: Khanid Kingdom strenuously denies ill treatment of slaves (http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=334&tid=4)
Ah, that's a good find.
-
Btw., the Empire isn't that behind in technology and science: Actually, it has some of the greatest minds in some areas. That's not necessarily because there are slaves working on stuff, but because the Amarrian elite places such high value on education. The PF states explicitly: "Amarr citizens tend to be highly educated and fervent individuals, [...]."
When one chooses faction/race, none other description makes explicit mention of the educational standards of education or the value it has in the respective society, one might take this as a hint that education is highly valued within the Empire, compared to the other three factions.
-
They place high value on it, aye, though according to recent reports (http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=5032&tid=2), it's been in decline for a few years.
-
Aye, if one wants to believe the Ardishapur chancellor of education. Anyway: apparently the Amarr people are still 'highly educated', the possible decline none withstanding.
-
I think there is a tendency to see the Amarr as a bit backward (because they operate with something roughly like a feudal structure, and have slaves). Technologically though, they lead the cluster in some areas (implants and cybernetics) and are at least on-par in a lot of others. Some of the ship types they use might be decades or centuries old, but they work, they are expensive to replace, and they probably get periodic upgrades (you can see something like this in most modern navies. Hell, the US still uses B-52s).
I think that slavery isn't economically efficient (for the reasons others have covered), but I think the Empire is also stuck. I expect there are probably quite a few people in the Empire who realize it isn't efficient. Things like tradition and religion help keep it in place - and of course simple inertia. Even if an Empire magically without slaves would be more efficient, the slave are there, and they are inseparably tangled up with the Imperial economy.
-
There are a lot of hints in the game about the Amarrians having higher technological capability in the past and that they have chosen to regress technologically to reach a more stable society.
The Godflesh dogma could be perceived as taboo that rose from the heresy of cloning by the Takhmal that were driven out of the Empire aaaaages ago.
The implant technology in the Empire is of the highest standard in the cluster and it has not developed in aaaaaages.
Throw the ships and the laser tech on top of that and you've got a theory in your hands...
Slavery might be not be the most efficient in production of goods and bringing resources to the economy, but it does have bigger part in the Amarrian society other than purely economical or religious.
There is no unemployment in the Empire.
There is no prisons in the Empire.
Poor people can sell themselves to slavery to get money for their families.
If a person does a heinous crime, their whole family can go into slavery for it.
The threat of slavery means that there is a lot less crime within the Empire, especially since your whole family may pay the price for your transgressions.
Basically slavery is a quite different tool in a culture for peace and stability that needs a quite a stretch of imagination to actually understand.
Since we are in a serious lack of real Amarrians and solid cultural PF this is a bit of a handwaving thing. I doubt that you can count the difference between slavery and other ways of production with just simple math.
Too many variables.
-
things like cloning being heresy, an important thing to note, is that with the timescales involved, then the Amarr theologians would be able to observe the effects that cloning and genetic engineering have, and say "This is clearly A Bad Thing" and say it's unrighteous.
-
There are a lot of hints in the game about the Amarrians having higher technological capability in the past and that they have chosen to regress technologically to reach a more stable society.
The Godflesh dogma could be perceived as taboo that rose from the heresy of cloning by the Takhmal that were driven out of the Empire aaaaages ago.
The implant technology in the Empire is of the highest standard in the cluster and it has not developed in aaaaaages.
Throw the ships and the laser tech on top of that and you've got a theory in your hands...
Slavery might be not be the most efficient in production of goods and bringing resources to the economy, but it does have bigger part in the Amarrian society other than purely economical or religious.
There is no unemployment in the Empire.
There is no prisons in the Empire.
Poor people can sell themselves to slavery to get money for their families.
If a person does a heinous crime, their whole family can go into slavery for it.
The threat of slavery means that there is a lot less crime within the Empire, especially since your whole family may pay the price for your transgressions.
Basically slavery is a quite different tool in a culture for peace and stability that needs a quite a stretch of imagination to actually understand.
Since we are in a serious lack of real Amarrians and solid cultural PF this is a bit of a handwaving thing. I doubt that you can count the difference between slavery and other ways of production with just simple math.
Too many variables.
I think that's a good point.
And that's also why I said that it was difficult to prove slavery to be inefficient or not in absolute terms. Too many variables and a lack of them to be really accurate.
However, the Caldari (and us) can find a good bunch of cons for the practice, indeed.
-
I'd be skeptical that those 'hints' that 'the Amarrians [...] have chosen to regress technologically' are really such hints. They are hints that can be interpreted as such, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possible interpretations. Also, that implant technology in the Empire didn't develop for ages in the Empire seems to be pure speculation to me. Just because there isn't explicit statement that there has been R&D in that filed doesn't mean that there wasn't, as there is no explicit statement that Inherent Implants sits on the same designs for millennia by now either.
I think the important point for this topic is not whether slavery is economically beneficiary for the Empire or which other benefitsthe institution of slavery might have to the Empire. Really important is for the Caldari which benefit it would have for them. Given the system they have, slavery offers little if no benefits to them while having high investment costs. So, the Caldari are against installing something like it in the State.
That they don't allow Amarr to bring their slaves along might simply be explained by the fact that they subscribe very much to a "If you are in Caldari space, you do as the Caldari do!" policy.
-
I think this is a better subject to debate in-character than OOC.
-
I think the important point for this topic is not whether slavery is economically beneficiary for the Empire or which other benefitsthe institution of slavery might have to the Empire. Really important is for the Caldari which benefit it would have for them. Given the system they have, slavery offers little if no benefits to them while having high investment costs. So, the Caldari are against installing something like it in the State.
That they don't allow Amarr to bring their slaves along might simply be explained by the fact that they subscribe very much to a "If you are in Caldari space, you do as the Caldari do!" policy.
However, the Caldari also consider the affairs of other nations their own business, as long as it does no direct harm to the State. As a result, the Caldari find no difficulty in being allied with the Amarr Empire and Khanid Kingdom. They may believe those nations would serve as better trading partners should they abolish slavery, but they wouldn't presume to meddle with their society. (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Caldari_State)
So yes, the Caldari think its up to the Amarr and Khanid whether or not they keep slaves; but no, they also think slavery is economy inefficient in those places as well.
In addition, in relation to Pieter's point about living conditions, it's actually the same paragraph of the same article that makes both points:
"The Caldari State is ranked second for average quality of living when compared with other empires on an absolute basis. This is mostly measured in access to services rather than personal wealth or comfort. The ubiquitousness of State authorities means that all corporate-controlled territories have the same levels of infrastructure. Though the size of Caldari residences are on par with slave quarters in the Amarr Empire (with unmarried individuals living in dormitories) and similarly bare of any luxuries" (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Caldari_State)
I think it's important to remember that none of the articles on demographics talk about median living standards, just the mean. I would imagine it's quite plausible for a Caldari citizen to assert that their system is better than the Federation's even though average living standards are lower, for example, because (in this argument: not trying to assert it's How Things Are OOCly) the Federation average is skewed upwards by the Alpha cities (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Gallente_Federation), and thus doesn't reflect conditions for the great bulk of the Federation.
-
However, the Caldari also consider the affairs of other nations their own business, as long as it does no direct harm to the State. As a result, the Caldari find no difficulty in being allied with the Amarr Empire and Khanid Kingdom. They may believe those nations would serve as better trading partners should they abolish slavery, but they wouldn't presume to meddle with their society. (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Caldari_State)
So yes, the Caldari think its up to the Amarr and Khanid whether or not they keep slaves; but no, they also think slavery is economy inefficient in those places as well.
Sure, and it is from their point of view, for the Caldari economy/trade. Doesn't mean that a Caldari economist hired to assess the economy of the Empire would say that it'd be good for the Empire to abolish slavery, if he really tries to do a good job rather than pushing Caldari trade interests.
-
She might well, since "the Caldari view slavery as a misguided notion that does more harm to an economy (and thus a proper society) than good. (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Caldari_State)"
An economy, not 'the Caldari economy'.
Amarr characters, and individual Caldari characters for that matter, might very well have their own views on the role of slavery in the Amarr economy. However, there is PF support for Caldari characters believing that slavery is bad for economies in general, regardless of the simultaneous view that the Amarr have the right to be inefficient if they want to.
-
Isn't the amarrian model of slavery not focused on economical but on spiritual/ideological reasons?
On the topic of Caldari views, let me quote le PF.
While they understand slaves provide ostensibly free labor, they also realize that a slave owner needs to feed, house, and clothe his slaves. Additionally, though slaves can produce items of value, they are unable to purchase anything and thus cannot contribute to a healthy economy.
Prior to summoning up evelopedia this'd be the line of thinking I'd use to construct an argument why slavery is not the best choice economically. Borderline cases such as POWs or criminals aside (Those have to be fed anyway) it largely depends on quite another question:
Do you want to integrate the current slave population into the society. Slavery might as well be a tool of (racial/cultural) separation.
This, combined with the spiritual reasons and the view of slavery as a burden to holders might explain more than an economical analysis.
-
This, combined with the spiritual reasons and the view of slavery as a burden to holders might explain more than an economical analysis.
Absolutely. In fact, if I met one of my Caldari characters I'd probably tell them they were doingitwrong for viewing slavery in the Empire through an economic lens.
-
All right, lets put it this way, Liberal Amarrians think that slavery is economically inefficient.
It has been used in debate between Amarrians, between non-Amarrians and just about anybody who has a chip on their shoulder about slavery that does not want to actually do anything about it.
Freedom Fighters, they do not debate, they just raid the Empire for slaves and free them.
I think it is the actions more than opinions that make any difference, in real life and in New Eden.
Boycott Amarrian goods and trade if you do not want to have anything to do with slavery.
Do something.
Talking about it is just about as inefficient as talking about how someone else thinks it is inefficient.
This thread is hilarious.
-
Well that still remains the Caldari point of view of the effect of slavery on any economy, whatever is written in PF.
Not an universal truth on the matter.
-
Not an universal truth on the matter.
Argh.
Alright, one last attempt at arguing this: empirically. Think of all the places and circumstances where slave or coerced labor occurred in history, then think about where they are now.
-
Well that still remains the Caldari point of view of the effect of slavery on any economy, whatever is written in PF.
Not an universal truth on the matter.
There are a few different discussions going on in this thread and you've raised a few different questions so let me summarize the answers.
1) Why do players (not characters) use as a fact the argument that slavery is economically inefficient?
Answer: Because it is the consensus of economists, for a range of reasons discussed in this thread including lower economic growth due to lower consumption, lower labor quality, and lack of labor flexibility, that with certain very limited exceptions, slavery is economically inefficient.
2) Why do Caldari think slavery is inefficient?
Answer: Because PF tells us they do. Characters may use arguments developed by real world economists to support and develop that argument (just as characters use arguments developed by real world political scientists in debates over democracy, and real world religious scholars over the importance of faith) but ultimately, the authority for the Caldari in general thinking slavery is economically inefficient is the PF.
3) Do the Caldari think slavery is economically inefficient in the Amarr Empire?
Answer: PF tells us that yes, they do.
4) Do the Caldari think the Amarr should stop using slavery?
Answer: The Caldari don't think it's their business. They do think the Amarr would be better trading partners without slavery, so they may think in a general way that it would be good if slavery in the Empire ended, but they're not about to collectively tell the Amarr to cut it out. Individual Caldari characters, however, may be more pushy about it, as individuals.
5) Is slavery inefficient in the Amarr Empire?
Answer: Unclear. PF itself is contradictory, as comments about educated and compliant slaves (untrained and non-compliant labor being one of the great inefficiencies in slavery) are balanced by other references to this being an exception. We do not know enough about the Amarr Empire to know if they have solved all the various issues that make slavery economically inefficient. The Caldari, their allies, don't think they have, according to PF.
6) Does that mean the Amarr Empire are idiots for sticking with slavery/ do I have to find a way for slavery to be efficient for my character to not be an idiot for supporting it?
Answer: No. Slavery is a complex social (and in the Empire, religious) institution that, in human history, has generally not been used or supported for purely economic grounds, but for a range of complex motivations. Slavery obviously works well enough for the Empire not to be a banana republic, economically.
-
Not an universal truth on the matter.
Argh.
Alright, one last attempt at arguing this: empirically. Think of all the places and circumstances where slave or coerced labor occurred in history, then think about where they are now.
Because western ethics have evolved ?
And our own countries practiced it too, and where they are now is where we are now, no ?
-
(THREAD-SUMMARIZING POST HERE)
This may need to be stickied.
-
Well that still remains the Caldari point of view of the effect of slavery on any economy, whatever is written in PF.
Not an universal truth on the matter.
There are a few different discussions going on in this thread and you've raised a few different questions so let me summarize the answers.
1) Why do players (not characters) use as a fact the argument that slavery is economically inefficient?
Answer: Because it is the consensus of economists, for a range of reasons discussed in this thread including lower economic growth due to lower consumption, lower labor quality, and lack of labor flexibility, that with certain very limited exceptions, slavery is economically inefficient.
2) Why do Caldari think slavery is inefficient?
Answer: Because PF tells us they do. Characters may use arguments developed by real world economists to support and develop that argument (just as characters use arguments developed by real world political scientists in debates over democracy, and real world religious scholars over the importance of faith) but ultimately, the authority for the Caldari in general thinking slavery is economically inefficient is the PF.
3) Do the Caldari think slavery is economically inefficient in the Amarr Empire?
Answer: PF tells us that yes, they do.
4) Do the Caldari think the Amarr should stop using slavery?
Answer: The Caldari don't think it's their business. They do think the Amarr would be better trading partners without slavery, so they may think in a general way that it would be good if slavery in the Empire ended, but they're not about to collectively tell the Amarr to cut it out. Individual Caldari characters, however, may be more pushy about it, as individuals.
5) Is slavery inefficient in the Amarr Empire?
Answer: Unclear. PF itself is contradictory, as comments about educated and compliant slaves (untrained and non-compliant labor being one of the great inefficiencies in slavery) are balanced by other references to this being an exception. We do not know enough about the Amarr Empire to know if they have solved all the various issues that make slavery economically inefficient. The Caldari, their allies, don't think they have, according to PF.
6) Does that mean the Amarr Empire are idiots for sticking with slavery/ do I have to find a way for slavery to be efficient for my character to not be an idiot for supporting it?
Answer: No. Slavery is a complex social (and in the Empire, religious) institution that, in human history, has generally not been used or supported for purely economic grounds, but for a range of complex motivations. Slavery obviously works well enough for the Empire not to be a banana republic, economically.
1) Wait... The consensus of economists ? Uh, ok, then.
2) Well yes, but that's not an answer in itself. It was the main purpose behind opening that thread in the first place, to try to understand why the Caldari would consider it as such. A lot of good points have been brought up to back that up and I got it more clear now.
-
What I'm trying to say is that even if a Caldari would not see the Empire's economy as sitting on a global peak in regard to efficency, they might still acknowledge that it's a local peak on which the Empire is practically stuck, as investment costs to change to another economic system are too high.
Also, of course an Caldari sees all other econo-politcal systems as less efficent than their own.
Now onto another thing:
As I was not quite convinced by the appeal to authority in 1), nor by the arguments given that slavery is economically inefficent I did a quick search with google scholar. Since the article 'The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South (http://00prcoelho.iweb.bsu.edu/econ309/Conrad%20and%20Meyer%20on%20the%20Economics%20of%20Slavery.pdf)' by Conrad & Meyer and especially the book 'Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_on_the_Cross:_The_Economics_of_American_Negro_Slavery)' by Fogel & Engerman, which both employ econometrics to the question and conclude that slavery in the US south was efficient, were published, there is, as far as I was able to see, no consensus on the economic efficiency of slavery in the economic sciences.
To me it appears, after skimming through a lot of articles on the topic, that there are conditions under which slavery is economically efficient (land is abundant, labor is scarce, labor done is is relatively simple and thus easy to supervise) and others under which it is not. I think there are good reasons to assume that the radical move away from slavery that we see in western societies and thinking is a cultural achievement of progressing ethics, rather than the result of economic necessities.
-
Economy of the Amarr Empire (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Economy_of_the_Amarr_Empire)
Something to read if people haven't yet.
Some important notes from it:
"The Empire utilizes minimal automation in harvesting, which makes it less efficient than the other empires."
"In some senses, this is a self-fulfilling cycle, as more slaves mean more needs, which means more work must be done, which means more slaves are needed. This, as well as a perceived inefficiency in utilizing manual labor over extensive automation, has led to criticism of the slavery industry from a purely economic standpoint, especially from the Caldari State. Ignoring the social and religious implications, the Amarr often respond that adjusting a process which has worked for millennia would have massive costs which could potentially crash the Imperial economy entirely."
So it does seem to be primarily a matter of modern machinery. While slaves are trained to use machines and it's not a complete 'picking by hand' workforce (as stated in the Slavery article), it's still more "backwards" and labor-intensive than the other empires.
-
Slaves spend the majority of their days tending and harvesting crops, plowing fields, and eliminating pests. Contrary to the popular image, not all of these tasks are done by hand. While certain crops do require manual harvesting, many tasks are performed by slaves utilizing machines.
PF somewhat contradicts itself at least a little on this.
I can very well imagine that their machines and automation are less efficient, but make up your mind, manual labor or slaves utilizing machines ? :/
-
I don't think it really contradicts at all. It's not binary.
Slaves use machines. But those machines are not state of the art, or rather they do not use the level of automation that machines do in other empires. Therefore, in comparison to the other empires, the slaves do more hands-on, inefficient work.
In other words, it is the machines that require hands-on attention. If the Caldari or the Gallente have, say, a drone tractor, while the Empire has a slave-driven tractor, then the Imperial tractor is more labor-intensive. The use of machines lowers the amount of labor needed, but the degree of lowering varies widely.
In fact, consider the differences between Amarrian and Caldari crews. In this area, the idea is completely reversed. Caldari crews are more labor-intensive, because they do not use the same amount of automation as the Amarr ships do. And the Gallente use even more than both. Therefore, Caldari ships are, crew-wise, more inefficient than the ships of other empires, even if their ships are otherwise more advanced.
Slaves use agricultural machines, rather than hand-picking, but those machines are designed to be micro-managed by a user, whereas in, say, the State, the machine is designed to run largely on its own.
-
Since the article 'The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South (http://00prcoelho.iweb.bsu.edu/econ309/Conrad%20and%20Meyer%20on%20the%20Economics%20of%20Slavery.pdf)' by Conrad & Meyer and especially the book 'Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_on_the_Cross:_The_Economics_of_American_Negro_Slavery)' by Fogel & Engerman,
I'm not going to attempt to summarize the extremely long debate that has been running since Conrad and Meyer published in 1958 and Fogel and Engermen in 1974. Suffice it to say that there have been numerous closely argued and carefully documented articles demonstrating that both cherry-picked atypical circumstances and made errors in their interpretation of the data.
As for there being conditions under which slavery is economically efficient, as I said there are 'certain very limited exceptions'. These involve the absence of non-slave labor and the absence of any way to induce or acquire non-slave labor. The simplicity of work has not been found to be a significant factor in increasing the efficiency of production through slave, rather than free, labor. The degree to which work shortens life-span has been found to be a factor, in that it ties in to the ability of employers to attract non-slave labor (in the Caribbean, for example, production of tobacco was mostly done by free labor, but when the economies of that area converted to largely sugar production, the intolerable working conditions and high death rates meant free workers would not undertake it. Sugar thus could not have been produced in these areas without slave labor, making slavery an 'economically efficient' choice).
This was the situation in the very early years of the colonization of what is now the USA, for example, and it made slavery a rational economic decision for a short period. Ironically, the agricultural fertility of the southern states enabled land owners there to outbid their northern neighbors for slaves, which is why slavery was geographically concentrated in the USA. After a decade or so, when immigration and then natural population increase caught up with labor demand, slavery ceased to be an efficient mode of production, leaving the southern landowners stuck with the sunk costs of a less efficient labor force they could not fire, lay off seasonally, or even free (it was illegal to free slaves in many slave states). Also ironically, the expansion of publicly expressed anti-slavery sentiments in non-slave-economies such as the northern parts of the USA and England post-dates the demographic and economic shifts that made slavery obsolete as an economically rational choice. Tracking public (and private, through correspondence) comments about slavery in places such as New Hampshire, for example, shows a transition over several decades from "I would use slaves if those damn southerns didn't buy them all at prices I can't afford" to "I would use slaves if it made sense but free labor means I make more money" to "Slavery is bad".
The kindest interpretation is to suggest that the alleviation of urgent economic pressures freed people to more broadly consider the social and humanitarian implications of slavery; less kind, one could suggest that opposition to slavery was an opportunistic, 'making a virtue of economic reality' matter. I also wonder, although I am not aware of any study that explores it, how much northern antipathy to southern slavery had roots in the early colonial resentment at being deprived of access to what was at the time a scarce labor source.
I also note that there is little good data on the economic efficiency/ inefficiency of slavery in Classical times, in part because it is very difficult to find comparative economies in which one utilized slave labor and the other free. One might hypothesize that expansionist states such as the Romans found themselves, at least in early decades, comparatively short of labor, and the use of slaves freed up Roman citizens to undertake military and political service, thus enabling the continued expansion of Rome and, in that sense at least, 'efficient', regardless of the questions of whether or not actual production would have yielded greater output or economic growth would have been quicker using free labor.
This of course raises the question of how different societies see 'the economy' and 'efficiency'. We have not, in this discussion, really touched on the idea that 'the economy' is not a purely factual descriptive term but a value-laden one that includes or excludes different kinds of production and value creation depending on social values - for example, house work, child rearing, and other caring work has only recently been included by some countries in their assessment. A society's own view of the efficiency of its economy would be affected by, not only its view on what the economy is for, but also what the economy is.
-
I didn't say that the texts I cited are particularly good, I merely observed apparently since their times and up to recent articles from 2012 economists seem to debate when exactly slavery is and/or was efficient and that this debate didn't quite look like a consensus, like, say, is reached in regard to whether organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic matter. The opinion seems to lean towards saying that slavery is in general inefficient compared to a 'free-labor' economy, but then I'd guess that there is some inevitable research bias at work there, too.
Also, I can imagine quite a lot of circumstances under which those 'certain very limited exceptions' are quite widespread. Also, the idea that if the circumstances change so that slavery gets inefficient means that people will 'make a virtue out of economic necessity' doesn't seem convincing to me. Why should those people - that know that there are circumstances under which slavery is economically efficient - not say "well, we should keep that way open, just in case"? To make the decision against keeping that proverbial foot in the door is an ethical decision. I think that the 'kinder' interpretation is the proper interpretation in this case.
Also, if one follows the idea that people always prefer to do what is economically efficient (as indicated by the not so kind interpretation at least), that would mean that we have reason to assume that all instances of slavery are, by virtue of that, in some way 'economically efficient' as otherwise slavery wouldn't be practiced - or at least not to the extents we know about historically.
As to the question of what we mean by 'economy' and 'efficiency': It seems to me that this only means that it's harder to rule out slavery as efficient, as one could argue that there are ways to reasonably understand 'economy' and 'efficiency' in ways that open up for more cases of economically efficient slavery. By the way the insight that 'economy' and 'efficiency' are value laden terms should make one suspect that in modern society, which abhors slavery and praises economic efficiency, those terms are understood in a way that is biased towards defining 'slavery', 'economy' and 'efficiency' in a way that collides with understanding slavery as economically efficient. That ties in with said research bias. It might also explain why some cases of coerced labor in modern societies aren't understood as 'slavery', while they clearly were in e.g. ancient times.
In conclusion, I still don't see a consensus about this among researchers into this topic.
-
The major reasons I see the Caldari thinking slavery is a bad idea are:
- Slaves are not particularly good for things other than physical labor tasks, mostly because it's hard to motivate a slave as easily as you can a normal employee, and poorly motivated employees do not perform as well when it comes to more developed economies. How many First World economies in today's world have slavery (China is not First World)?
- There is a lot of overhead involved in keeping slaves -- they are not "free" labor. You still have to pay a lot of money for security and to deal with inevitable slave rebellions (that will cost you a lot). It is probably cheaper to pay them a marginal wage and use propaganda and marketing to keep them in line.
- Automation is generally much cheaper than slave labor for repetitive tasks, and it's much better for handling precision tasks as well (robots don't screw up because they are pissed at their masters or because they can't be bothered to care). The Caldari system, with giant megacorporations, also minimizes the risk of sinking capital costs because the cost is "socialized" -- one factory being written off is less of an issue for a megacorporation than for an entrepreneur.
- The Caldari have a lot of cultural baggage and feel as if they were taken advantage of by the Federation for a long time, which contributes to a feeling of sanctity in the self as a paramount cultural value; this makes the Caldari extremely biased against slavery.
-
The major reasons I see the Caldari thinking slavery is a bad idea are:
- Slaves are not particularly good for things other than physical labor tasks, mostly because it's hard to motivate a slave as easily as you can a normal employee, and poorly motivated employees do not perform as well when it comes to more developed economies. How many First World economies in today's world have slavery (China is not First World)?
- There is a lot of overhead involved in keeping slaves -- they are not "free" labor. You still have to pay a lot of money for security and to deal with inevitable slave rebellions (that will cost you a lot). It is probably cheaper to pay them a marginal wage and use propaganda and marketing to keep them in line.
- Automation is generally much cheaper than slave labor for repetitive tasks, and it's much better for handling precision tasks as well (robots don't screw up because they are pissed at their masters or because they can't be bothered to care). The Caldari system, with giant megacorporations, also minimizes the risk of sinking capital costs because the cost is "socialized" -- one factory being written off is less of an issue for a megacorporation than for an entrepreneur.
- The Caldari have a lot of cultural baggage and feel as if they were taken advantage of by the Federation for a long time, which contributes to a feeling of sanctity in the self as a paramount cultural value; this makes the Caldari extremely biased against slavery.
Well as much as the first points can be valid for a Caldari (though I am not sure myself that they really think that way but that may be my PF interpretation), I disagree with the fact that the Caldari are biased against slavery due to their past with the gallente. They have never been slaves of any sort and just disagreed with the system they were part of. It is even stated that you can't fint in New Eden a culture with a more neutral stance towards slavery. It is clearly stated that slavery is completely alien to them since they have never even imagined it before meeting with the Amarr.
It is also said that they find it inefficient from their point of view (with all the various good points brought above to explain why), so they do not see the point to change their economy to use it.
Also, why China would not be first world economy ? Depends on the definition I guess. Not really sure what China has to do with that - as far as I know they do not practice slavery, merely dubious labor conditions akin to Caldari lowest classes - but if your only aim is GDP, then China is first world economy.
From a purely practical megacorporation point of view, GDP would probably be one of the main goals. I am not sure that their administrative pannel really care for the conditions of their base worker since they have all the corporate rights on their lives, as long as they remain productive. If they have the second highest living standard that's probably due to the middle to upper classes that have actually earned their salary and position through meritocracy, nepotism, or whatever works in that kind of social ladder.
-
<snip>
Also, why China would not be first world economy ? Depends on the definition I guess. Not really sure what China has to do with that - as far as I know they do not practice slavery, merely dubious labor conditions akin to Caldari lowest classes - but if your only aim is GDP, then China is first world economy.
<snip>
Unless I am mistaken I think what is being referenced here is the Chinese habit of using prisoner labour. This a large part of why the Chinese military actually makes a profit if I am remembering correctly.
-
China is also a country where 90% of the country is still living in abject poverty, where farming and manufacturing are largely done with manual labor. Its GDP is high, but that's largely because it has a fifth of the world's population. Per capita, China's GDP ranks somewhere around 95th, below countries like Brazil and Turkmenistan.
-
<snip>
Also, why China would not be first world economy ? Depends on the definition I guess. Not really sure what China has to do with that - as far as I know they do not practice slavery, merely dubious labor conditions akin to Caldari lowest classes - but if your only aim is GDP, then China is first world economy.
<snip>
Unless I am mistaken I think what is being referenced here is the Chinese habit of using prisoner labour. This a large part of why the Chinese military actually makes a profit if I am remembering correctly.
Unless I'm mistaken the habit of using prisoner labour is not uncommon in 1st world states like the US either.
The World Bank gives that 14% of the people in Chine are living in poverty by international standards - by national standards only 4% do so and they have a trend towards fewer and fewer people living in poverty.
The US census bureau's last report gives that 15% of the US citizens live under the poverty threshold by national standards. The trend is towards more poor people, by the way.
So, really I don't see that China compares that bad with some of the western countries.