"Marx got a lot of insight from Frederick Law Olmstead about slavery. They also seem to have corresponded."
Thank you Michael.
Yes I knew this. I have also read Olmstead on slavery, inspired by Edmund Wilson.
I tend to agree with Olmstead's view of the degradation and backwardness of the south. He was a good observer and it coincides with what we have learned since.
_But my basic question was more along the lines of "Why should we accept that this kind of degradation of tools and beasts is the general tendency of all slave systems?"_
And such a question does speak to the relative efficiency of "free" labor over slave labor. Maybe though, on this latter question, Marx was only referring to the southern states of the U.S. and/or to certain conditions in economic and social relations, that makes "unbound" labor more "efficient" than bonded labor. But, even in a world where capitalist relations predominated, aren't there conditions where this might not be true?
And of course I just don't think that a "'free' labor-as-commodity" market was more "efficient" in ancient Rome. I am not sure how one measures comparative efficiency in such a case, so perhaps I am asking a question, that in principle cannot be answered.
In answer to Joanna: I think those who argue that technology developed slowly in antiquity because there was no reason to increase the labor power of the individual are not paying attention to the fact that technology developed relatively quickly in China and was then transferred to Europe (gunpowder and ways to use it, printing press, aspects of bookkeeping, the compass, administrative accounts for a bureaucracy) _and_, that the ancient world was not technologically "backward" in the way that we usually think of it. This is a long debate.
Without wanting to start a flame war I have never been one to believe that market systems were responsible for the original explosion of technological innovation in Europe. I am willing to be corrected here.
But it seems to me that what set off this explosion was the speed up of the diffusion of knowledge and culture, and the networks of cooperation and competition that were a result of the speed up of cultural diffusion. To the extent that markets (and the need for more productive labor) later speed-up this speed-up of cultural and knowledge diffusion then one can say markets are responsible. But it always seem to me that the crucial thing was the circulation and openness of knowledge diffusion and the willingness of state-entities to compete with other state entities to put it to its (usually most destructive) best use. Perhaps the argument is that only markets can cause this speed-up and these social networks. I don't know.
Woj: Brings up a good point: What is a slave? But I don't think that we can define it with great accuracy except that a slave is owned and that his labor appears as unpaid labor. Doug mentioned _Capital_ and so I am simply assuming the definitions of slavery and "free" labor in capital as a good starting point. And yes Woj, is correct the condition of slavery is a "status" definition in relation to society at large as well as a particular place in the relations of production. Every society where slavery was a dominant form had its own way of defining slavery and a slave. But there are a few relations that seemed to be common. But in one respect Rome was unique in the ancient world. A slave could become a citizen of Rome, and a citizen and good standing.
I hope not to start a flame here. I am just noodling a question and I appreciate Michael, Joanna, & Woj for providing input.
Jerry