Slavery as an industrial system

by H. J. Nieboer

On the other hand, the employers have become independent of the labourers. In the system of natural economy the landlord took care not to lose his labourers, whom he wanted to cultivate his land; but now landlords and capitalists can always get as many labourers as they like and dismiss them as soon as they are no longer of any use. This leads to an oppression of the poor by the rich[150].

This is Hildebrand’s theory, so far as the condition of the labouring classes is concerned. Natural economy, according to him, leads to serfdom, money economy leads to freedom. [[354]]

We think this theory is erroneous.

It would perhaps be better not to speak of “natural economy” and “money economy”; for these terms are likely to lead to misunderstanding. The mere existence of money is of comparatively little consequence. A circulating medium arises as soon as it is wanted; and where the precious metals are unknown something else will do, as in Melanesia and among many Negro tribes, where shells are used for money. The existence of a circulating medium denotes a development of commerce; for barter on any extensive scale is hardly possible. Therefore we had better speak of self-sufficing and commercial communities. As long as each village is practically self-dependent money is not wanted; but as soon as the interchange of commodities takes any considerable dimensions the need for a means of exchange becomes pressing. And there is, indeed, a great difference in social structure between self-sufficing and commercial communities[151]; but if we ascribe this difference to the existence of gold and silver coins we arrive at false conclusions. A proof of this is the fact that Hildebrand thinks capital can only exist when there is money. Yet we know that the Germans have kept cattle from early times, long before money economy prevailed; and cattle are decidedly to be called capital; they cannot be classified under either of the only two means of production which, according to Hildebrand, exist in a system of natural economy: land and human labour; and in our chapter on pastoral tribes we have seen that cattle-keepers form strongly marked capitalistic communities.

But even if we speak of self-dependent and commercial communities, we cannot admit that in the former labour must necessarily be servile and in the latter free.

First. How can natural economy, i.e. the absence of commerce, lead to serfdom? Hildebrand says: landlords and labourers are mutually dependent on each other, and so their relations assume a durable character, and the labourer is astricted to the soil. [[355]]We think his meaning is the following. In self-sufficing communities the fluidity of labour which exists in modern society, is wanting. In such countries there can be famine in one district, whilst in a contiguous district there is plenty of food; similarly labour can be scarce in one place whilst it is abundant in a neighbouring place. Therefore a landlord cannot afford to let his labourers leave the manor; for as there is little intercourse between the different villages and districts it is difficult for him to procure other labourers. It is thus most convenient for him to bind his labourers to the soil and forbid them to leave him.

This may at first sight seem a reasonable explanation of the origin of serfdom. But on closer scrutiny it will be seen that this argument does not hold. When there is little intercourse, each landlord is dependent on the labourers of his own district; and there must be a great stability in the relations of the two classes. But this need not bring about an astriction of the labourers to the soil. The landlord cannot easily procure labourers from other districts; but it is even more difficult for the labourers to find employment in foreign parts; for such intercourse as there is, is kept by the ruling, not by the labouring classes. Therefore it is not necessary to bind the labourers to the soil; for they are already naturally dependent on the landlords of their own district. We think slavery and serfdom can only be accounted for by a general scarcity of labour. When labour is everywhere scarce a labourer who leaves his employer can everywhere find employment, whereas an employer cannot easily procure labourers; it is then the interest of the employer to prevent his labourers from leaving him. But the mere lack of intercourse limits the labourer in his choice of employment even more than it limits the employer in his choice of labourers.

Nor do the facts agree with this theory. We have seen that among pastoral tribes free labourers are frequently found, though labour is by no means fluid and the labourers are paid in kind, not in money. Among the natives of Hawaii, who lived under a system of natural economy, labour was also free. The passage in which Ellis describes the relation between landlords and cultivators has already been quoted by us, but it is [[356]]remarkable enough to repeat here. “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the common people are in general obliged to labour if required, part of two days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent, when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they call it (komo hou) enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the required sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents they have received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm, they are forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When, however, the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and the chiefs think the occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they remit the deficiency, and allow them to return”[152]. These cultivators are by no means astricted to the soil. They make a fresh agreement after every crop. If the produce brought is insufficient, they are either removed or by way of favour allowed to return[153].

Our conclusion is that, though in medieval Western Europe serfdom and natural economy existed at the same time, the former is not a necessary consequence of the latter.

Secondly. Does money economy, i.e. commerce, always lead to freedom? We know now that serfdom is not invariably connected with natural economy. Yet it might be that, wherever both natural economy and serfdom exist (as it was the case in the early Middle Ages) the rise of money economy always brought serfdom to a close.