Technological growth

[Kosmo]

I don't have a GDP history of Jamaica, but most sources agree to the general economic downfall. Banks were closed and trade slowed down. The opening of british market for tax free sugar in 1846 was the last blow to a weak economy.

The case of US growth it's more complex and I don't think a general law can be made from just one case. The northen states had almost no slavery having a quite different style of economy.

If the areas that were anexed from Mexic in 1840' became more prosperous by the time of the Civil War this means that the slavery introduced after they joined the US it's superior to the non slavery sistem of Mexic that they had before?

An economic sistem in industrial era it's very different from a traditional one.

[Virgil61]

...

About slavery and development: I think that it's more complex than to say "free the slaves and growth will come".

For example Jamaica (and other colonies from the Caraibean) experienced a quick economic colapse after the end of slavery while other sugar producing areas like Cuba and Brazil kept slavery for another 50 years with great profits.

Jamaica unlike Haiti kept it's profitable colonial status and was not destroyed by war, but what was a very important economic area was reduced to stagnation by the liberation of slaves.

Maybe if all slaves in Rome became free an economic collapse will follow because there was no labour market.

 

I think the case of Jamaica isn't instructive (on this topic) in that it was an extreme slave-labor based economy.

 

In the US and Brazil the economic sectors using slavery were part of a larger economic infra-structure more capable of handling a sudden shift in the dynamics of the labor market from slavery to free labor (the semi-serfdom of some sharecroppers is another issue). In the US, freed slaves and later generations, now mobile labor, supplied a large number of workers for the expanding and often labor starved industrial economies of the Northern states.

 

As an aside, not all Roman slaves were chained to oars. If I remember correctly some actually made money and engaged in trades.

[Kosmo]

You have a good point Virgil, I think we should extend our field.

 

Slavery did not end in Europe with the fall of the empire. Venice was in the middle age a large slave trader. Most of the mameluk army of Egipt was brought from the Black Sea and sold in Egipt by venetian tradesman. Venice, like other mediterranean cities, had a large slave population estimated to 30% of total population.

In the same time it was a major inovation center. Venetians developed shipbuilding and glass making and influenced banking, insurance, overseas trade, mathematics, painting, arhitecture, fashion and medicine.

As a republic it was an important political model and her broad interests made it the first to use diplomacy on a grand scale.

All this were possible despite slavery, but, of course, we cannot presume what would have happened if they freed the slaves.

 

Romania ended slavery in the mid XIX century, a period of great political and economic advance. There is no proof that ending slavery brought tehnological progress as slaves did not have jobs in agriculture or mining, but it's obvious that the general progress determined the ending of slavery.

 

Maybe a comparison with the effect of ending slavery in China will be usefull given the similarities between the two empires, but I have no ideea of the impact of slave liberation on chinese society.

 

I don't doubt the positive effect of ending slavery on modern industrial societies, but I don't believe that for the traditional ones ending slavery led to tehnological progress.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Kosmo

[caldrail]

Ending slavery doesn't equate with technological progress. During the industrial revolution in Britain workers were extremely downtrodden, poor wages, terrible working conditions, living in squalor almost. To all intents and purposes they were enslaved to the mills they worked for.

 

I think romans viewed technology with blinkers. They used it for a single purpose and didn't really adapt it or make connections that would lead to other advances. It wasn't lack of expertise or intelligence - they had plenty of that. It was their attitude to such things that kept advancement down, not slavery. Having said that, 'talking tools' were more adaptable. A machine does one thing and won't listen to you. A slave can be trained to do other things and will communicate if required.

[Germanicus]

I think romans viewed technology with blinkers

 

Okay so you don't think slavery was the reason - why do you think they had this attitude ?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Ending slavery doesn't equate with technological progress. During the industrial revolution in Britain workers were extremely downtrodden, poor wages, terrible working conditions, living in squalor almost. To all intents and purposes they were enslaved to the mills they worked for.

 

Frankly, this is nonsense. If you knew anything about the lives of real slaves (especially agricultural ones), you'd be ashamed to have written this.

[Kosmo]

Workers in early industrial Britain had a high status. Only those unqualified and undisciplined had a tough life, but it was better then the life of landlles peasants

[Kosmo]

I think that the attitude of romans/greeks towards tehnolgy it's based on their bias against manual labour.

Only theory was dignified enough for the attention of high status people. In ancient Greece even to be a Phidias or Praxiteles was seen as a "low status job".

Greeks were reluctant even against miltary strategy as a skill, but this changed during the hellenistic age.

The only practical knowledge that gave high status in Rome was the law and this because of the connection with political activity.

Sometimes arhitects had high positions like Appolodor, but this was not often.

There was little reward for innovation and an inventor could not became a Siemens or a Edison.

 

It's true that during the Middle Ages the situation looked similar, but it was a period of rapid tehnological advance.

 

It may be that in both cases professional associations/guilds restricted innovation, but during the Middle Ages and Reneissance advances were made in areas of activity not covered traditionaly by guilds like glass working for eyeglasses, clockmaking, gun production and printing or in areas where guilds could not control their members like mining and metalurgy.

Maybe a more developed world was later in favor of Europe so it could import tehnologies like gun powder and paper mills, silk production and carpet weaving from other areas.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Kosmo

[caldrail]

Ending slavery doesn't equate with technological progress. During the industrial revolution in Britain workers were extremely downtrodden, poor wages, terrible working conditions, living in squalor almost. To all intents and purposes they were enslaved to the mills they worked for.

 

Frankly, this is nonsense. If you knew anything about the lives of real slaves (especially agricultural ones), you'd be ashamed to have written this.

 

Not ashamed in the slightest. Mill owners at the start of the industrial revolution were often tyrannical. Don't forget, they were teaching new work habits. Prior to this, no-one worked fixed hours or a shift. Real slaves received variable treatment also. Some were favourites, others not. Some were valuable skilled people, others were just labourers. Their owners varied too. So it was in Roman times. We have people like Cato who regarded slaves as mere cattle, or Cicero who earned a high regard from his slaves. Most slaves aren't treated well as a rule because human nature being what it is many owners enjoy their power over others.

 

Superstition ranks high as a reason why technology did not progress although I dare say greed was a stronger factor. And what would one do with thousands of slaves if we build these infernal machines everywhere? Truth is, the romans had an easy life and never felt the need to introduce labour saving devices. I know this sounds like I'm a bit hypocritical, but the difference is that it wasn't actually the slaves that caused the lack of progress. The owners, the people with cash to invest, would have thought it better to keep up with the joneses. After all, if your neighbour suddenly frees 99% of his slaves and builds a large wooden contraption instead you'd think him a little odd wouldn't you? Don't know about you, but if there's a drought this year and that spring dries up we'll know who to blame, hmmm?

[Germanicus]

Truth is, the romans had an easy life and never felt the need to introduce labour saving devices. I know this sounds like I'm a bit hypocritical, but the difference is that it wasn't actually the slaves that caused the lack of progress. The owners, the people with cash to invest, would have thought it better to keep up with the joneses. After all, if your neighbour suddenly frees 99% of his slaves and builds a large wooden contraption instead you'd think him a little odd wouldn't you? Don't know about you, but if there's a drought this year and that spring dries up we'll know who to blame, hmmm?

 

You're right, it does sound a bit hypocritical - what you seem to be saying is that the salves themselves didn't cause the problem, but that slavery and it's functions did, which really means we agree.

[Kosmo]

Western Europe developed many tehnologies in the same time in which it was using slavery on an unprecedented scale. Even if this slavery was mainly at perifery it was in the same economic system.

 

Tehnology and science evolved while using slaves. The effect on ending slavery on the tehnology in a tradional economy can not be cuantified as this never happened. All traditional societies used some form of forced labour: slaves, serfs, indebtured servants etc.

 

By the time slavery was ending in the first places the world was in the middle of the Industrial Revolution and mass production was rapidly changing the world sending milions of people in unemployment and creating labour markets with a very low price for labour.

 

Ending slavery was a result of the broad development of a civilisation, not of some needs in a particular aspect of social life.

[Germanicus]

Ending slavery was a result of the broad development of a civilisation, not of some needs in a particular aspect of social life.

 

No ones saying that it is.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The effect on ending slavery on the tehnology in a tradional economy can not be cuantified as this never happened. All traditional societies used some form of forced labour: slaves, serfs, indebtured servants etc.

 

I wish I could say this more diplomatically, but you're simply flat-out wrong. The economic value of slavery versus free labor HAVE BEEN quantified, and slavery WAS abolished in a territory that was completely agrarian. See my earlier post for details, or (better) educate yourself on the economic history of the United States in the 19th century. Even a casual search on this topic in Amazon should alert you to the volume of econometrics that you're ignoring.

[Virgil61]

I wish I could say this more diplomatically, but you're simply flat-out wrong. The economic value of slavery versus free labor HAVE BEEN quantified, and slavery WAS abolished in a territory that was completely agrarian. See my earlier post for details, or (better) educate yourself on the economic history of the United States in the 19th century. Even a casual search on this topic in Amazon should alert you to the volume of econometrics that you're ignoring.

 

For you that was actually very diplomatic Cato. But you're right, slavery and it's impact on the economy of antebellum South has a pretty decent cache of literature. I'd venture a guess the topic has coined more than a few Phd theses. The truth is, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only two examples of wide-spread slavery impacting the economic landscape--specifically the ag sector--as an established long-term labor input are the Romans and the slavery along the Atlantic coast from the U.S. to Brazil in the 18th/19th century. Since the later, especially the U.S., have abundant evidence from slave diets to crop outputs to prices, that's where the research goes. Is it valid to compare it with slavery in the Roman Empire or any other era in terms of economics? As long as you keep an eye on the variables, I think it certainly shines a light on it.

 

Moral arguments aside, I can't imagine that an artificially induced cap--slavery--on an important economic input such as labor restricting it from adapting to any market drives (if you can use that word for ancient economies) or opportunities can be a positive for an economy in the end. Sure, Roman elites who held slaves came out ahead. But there's no doubt that the larger economy, and by inference technological development, suffered when it comes out in the wash.

Edited April 13, 2006 by Virgil61

[Kosmo]

I might be wrong, but you did not convinced me yet. In my mind there it's a big difference between the economy of the Ancient Rome and the booming industrial, capitalist economy of XIX centruy USA with her specialized areas.

Of course, slaves were used in USA in farming even more then in Rome. And when slavery ended all Atlantic slavery centers opened to imigrants driven from their countries in Europe or Asia by population growth and unemployment caused by industry.

Another unproven issue it's what drives tehnology in a traditional society (not in a industrial one!) and what impact slavery had on this factors to reduce the development of tehnology.

A third objection is the difference between slavery in the ancient world, with their huge difference in status and on modern Atlantic areas.

The last thing it's that maybe you need labour saving devices before the end of slavery not after.

After all in in late antiquity slavery was greatly reduced in Europe and tehnolgies were lost in that time rather then developed.

In antiquity, in Europe, the most developed areas were those where was ample slavery and not those without slavery.

 

So, if you'll be kind enough to answer my objections and not present the particular case of XIX US as a rule we might get somewhere and this is what I want as I'm interested in both slavery and the history of tehnolgy, but never before thought on their connection.

 

PS I'm familiar with US econmic history, but I was never interested in depth about the impact of slavery on US economy. Of course I know the basic, but not everything about it.