Editing Slavery (section)

==A Digression About the Economics of Slavery==
For serious worldbuilders who have it, you need to consider what economics already considers a long-standing question: Is slavery profitable in the long term, and if so where?

The consensus answer among economic historians to the first one is that yes, slavery can be profitable, but only in those situations where technology does not offer a faster/cheaper/safer solution. Indeed, most ancient Empires (Egyptian, Greek, Roman) had some form of institutionalized slavery that allowed them to endure. Likewise, the institutions of serfdom and feudalism in the early Medieval era was an evolution of the masses seeking shelter and sustenance from armed landowners (who in turn had to gain favor from higher authorities to protect their property from rivals). This being said, the very concept of slavery has some serious downsides (that have nothing to do with morality) dooming it in the long run. The short answer to the "where" question is "cash crops and other agriculture, unskilled labor, and a bit of mining", in roughly that order of profitability.

The practical downsides that doom slavery include, but are not limited to:

*First of all, in any area where sabotage is a serious concern slavery is usually a non-starter. For a recent example, look at the [[Nazi]]s using forced labor to build their weapons later in the war, and the quality of said weapons, with Russian POWs and Communist and Social Democrat political prisoners being the most prolific for small-scale sabotage (like leaving out a bolt here and there or not quite soldering something right). Turns out a learned clockmaker isn't the best at toiling the fields. That rules out most semi-modern mining, as well as just about any industry with any degree of mechanization and a surprising amount of agriculture.
** Despite mining being the stereotypical use of slaves in fiction, mining past a certain depth is sufficiently deadly and expensive that semi-skilled labor is '''absolutely required''', and a slave has a nice way to commit suicide AND hurt his master's profits at the same time. While ''other'' exploitative practices may be used, the training required means actual slavery-based mining is very much a no-go save for tasks such as the very basic work of breaking surface mineral seams, as well as open-pit mining, where "getting stuck" is not an issue and carrying loads to processing stations a la South American silver mining done by Spanish or simple stone quarries where all one needs doing is to hit a stone with a pick and carry the resulting ore chunks to the storage.
** The same goes for large-scale infrastructure projects like those undertaken during the Great Terror under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Nearly all of these projects that heavily relied on forced labour fell apart very quickly once they were put to use, often with disastrous consequences. The sinister thing about this is that, because the Soviet system was supposedly infallible, every accident of this kind was attributed to "Sabotage", leading to another round of arrests and purges, endlessly propelling forward a cycle of mass arrests, deportations, accidents and so forth. Khrushchev ended the Gulag system mainly because the shoddy work the Gulag produced wasn't sustainable in the long run (and also to distance himself from Stalin) when the USSR was to look eye to eye with the United States. 
*Second, unless reproduction is heavily encouraged (and ties down the female slaves to light labor), slave populations have a tendency to drop over time, especially compared to relatively free populations (even ignoring manumission, buying freedom in better societies and escapes), and five seconds of thought on slaves' living conditions should lead to a few obvious conclusions as to why. So if you want to keep up, you need to constantly raid (or trade with raiders) for more slaves. Last time this was done beyond the 16th century, the United States wrecked the entire Barbary coast with artillery and freed slaves. So any "sustainable" raiding *will* attract military threats that will make sure any slave taken will eventually be more expensive than a free worker who is A) already available and willing, B) lives within the empire and C) has many motivations, such as family, welfare and [[Tzeentch|hopes for a good future]]).
*Third, slave-holding societies are usually economically out-competed by non-slave-holding societies once military considerations are either removed or temporarily equalized. There are plenty of reasons for this, but the big ones are the twin spectres of Incentives (which align more closely in non-slave societies) and Efficiency (effort you expend on keeping slaves from escaping or rebelling could usually be more productively used elsewhere, and that's just to ''start'', saying nothing of potentially intelligent slaves wasted in labor they are not optimal for rather than being educated and made into scientists).
*Fourth, distinct from the point above, slavery has a bad habit of leading to a hyper-stratified society. Such heavy social stratification leads to a heavy decline in economic flexibility, which is a ''bad'' thing when you're in competition with a more flexible (and thus better able to change) society, particularly if innovation is a factor. Beyond scientific, technological, and economic competition, this also applies in military matters  as seen with historical "elite" slave military units such as the Janissaries and Mamelukes in the Middle East. Sure they were more fearless and well trained at the beginning but eventually, their comfortable status without existential foes to fight, distraction from political intrigue once they became king-makers, and lack of incentive to reform or innovate compared to their foreign adversaries adopting new technologies and tactics made any defeats extremely damaging to their host empires. 
*Fifth, if slaves are owned in large numbers they start to displace the local non-slaves. This is not a simple case of [[Meme|"DEY TOOK AHR JERBS"]], as the Romans can attest: when large numbers of slaves started to displace local farmers who were forced to sell their land for some reason or the other, said ex-farmers were driven to the cities, where there were not a lot of jobs either. This bred poverty, and from poverty rose a class dissatisfied with their lot in life as they starve while the rich grow fat. And from this rose political and civilian unrest, which is never good for any state. In the case of the Romans, this gave birth to a populist dictator, Julius Caesar and his adoptive son Octavian, which created a major precedent for all modern dictatorships and bread-and-circuses states.
*Lastly, having a large slave population essentially constituted a permanent fifth column presence.  Every empire that employed slavery was compelled to maintain a large armed presence in its home territory to suppress revolts.  This tended to limit the size that a state could grow to territorially, with only a few superpowers managing to consolidate enough territory with reliable regional governors to sustain a permanent campaigning military while retaining enough force at home to prevent rebellion. This was a noticeable problem with Sparta where the ratio of Helots to Spartiates (ethnic Spartan cizens, not to be confused with free-dwelling Perioikoi non-citizens) fluctuate around 7 Helots for every Spartiate. Hence, the Spartans had to initiate ritual war and assassination of those deemed too dangerous under the Krypteia to keep the Helots in line. On the other hand, others argue Sparta’s helot management system was more akin to ritual depreciation to make Helots suffer an inferiority complex from constant intimidation and surveillance instead of blatant terror tactics. Serfdom policed by religious caste systems was more effective at maintaining civil order, with serfs tending to rebel only in the case of famine and excessive taxation.

Slavery in worldbuilding is not confined strictly to historical settings; it is also a valid consideration in near future science fiction.  The time and cost of moving individuals to other bodies in the solar system by conventional means, combined with the work to be done and the scarcity of hands will mean that people on such ventures will NOT have the luxury to quit.  Space colonization under these circumstances will inevitably require a return to the ancient naval tradition that a captain at sea must be an absolute despot for the good of all aboard; "keeping ''everyone'' alive" and "avoiding ''everyone'' dying" are not synonymous, and many hazards of space make the distinction very important.  Activity in space today is achieved as a pseudo-military expedition with carefully selected teams trained to cooperate, but larger scale operations WILL necessitate an organization divide between labor and operations and that will result in social friction (this is already seen at the South Pole station; disputes between operations and scientific staff are a continuous problem, especially during winter when the station is completely isolated for months). In some settings, colonization is achieved in the form of penal colonies by using convicted prisoners labor to sidestep the moral questions of compulsory work and sacrificing some to save all (though this raises the issue of sabotage being a '''very''' serious concern). Additionally, the prospect of disadvantageous contract labor (akin to indentured servants) who are coerced into harsh labor to pay off debts (either related to those back at home or from the voyage in hopes of finding opportunities) could theoretically make a comeback.

[[Category:History]]