How close was Antiquity to Industrialism?

[DominusNovus]

I'm not sure you understood my point (or I may explaining it badly): while the raw material came mainly from colonial production, processing them (as well the capital investment origin) wasn't and where eventually two distinct activities with mainly distinct investors.

One of the principle drivers of innovation, particularly during industrialization, is to lower costs of production. The incentive to lower costs is pretty low when you have slaves. It's certainly a factor as to why industrialization progressed so much slower in antebellum South. As to the textile industry in Great Britain, had there been slave labor, or serfs for that matter, in the textile factories industrialization would have likely been delayed.

The mills of Great Britain and the slave plantations of the American South were all part of the same economy. The fact that they were separated by an ocean, had different backers, and operated under different governments doesn't change that. It was cotton that was produced by slaves and was then worked in factories that was the main engine of industrialization.

In fact, it was the cheapness of the raw material that was of such importance, and we see this in any example of mechanization or industrialization. Steam engines were developed in places where their raw material (coal) was cheap (coal mines). Paper mills were developed when there was an abundance of scrap cloth, and printing was developed when their was an abundance of paper.

This idea that slavery was antithetical to industrialization has some problems with the Roman experience. As their history went on, you saw a decrease in reliance on slavery by virtue of simple demographics. Further, you also saw just the sort of population declines that would make labor more valuable, in theory, due to the shortage of supply. And yet, there was not much in the way of mechanization or industrialization, aside from the apparently steady use of watermills.

 

[scholar]

One of the principle drivers of innovation, particularly during industrialization, is to lower costs of production. The incentive to lower costs is pretty low when you have slaves. It's certainly a factor as to why industrialization progressed so much slower in antebellum South. As to the textile industry in Great Britain, had there been slave labor, or serfs for that matter, in the textile factories industrialization would have likely been delayed.

You seem to be assuming that people will not like to lower their expenses when they have slaves, contrary to popular opinion there is no functional difference between the paying of subsistence wages and slavery from a resource perspective. You are still spending resources roughly equal to provide for the continued survival of the worker/slave. The difference is all social and political, not economical.

 

[LSCatilina]

The mills of Great Britain and the slave plantations of the American South were all part of the same economy.

But this economy wasn't dependent on slavery to function. You overlooked two important things :
1) That the investment wasn't issued from slavery profits, but from other activities.
2) That the production and estimated profit, what motivated the growing use of colonial cotton instead of just imports, used a non-servile taskforce (and not in factories, but at first, in workshops. I'm talking of a level before a real centralisation of production)

This idea that slavery was antithetical to industrialization has some problems with the Roman experience.

Well, for one, I never said that.
Slavery and industrialisation are compatible, and american history points that in a painfully obvious manner.

My point is more that it's easier for a society where slaves doesn't form the main market production taskforce to undergo industrialisation as it go with more specialisation and more investement eventually.

As their history went on, you saw a decrease in reliance on slavery by virtue of simple demographics.

It's disputable : slavery ratio indeed decreased importantly, but the halt on roman conquest, that were a really important provider of slaves was a big reason for.
While it decreased, furthermore, it never stopped to represent an important part of the production especially in the aformentioned larger centers (not that it was a Roman thing, it continued as such quite late, the ratio of slaves in XIth England being roughly similar to the overall ratio in Late Antiquity).

The point is less you had 33, 25 or 10% of slaves, that they represented the basis for market production while free pesantry was more on local consumption.

And yet, there was not much in the way of mechanization or industrialization, aside from the apparently steady use of watermills.

Well, you do have the gallic reaper whom use seems to be tied with a lack of taskforce (as for many flaws it had on other aspects, such as preventing recuperation of straw), and it's about this time than some innovations came out on agricultural matters such as the ancestor of medieval "horse collar".

Granted, it's not XVIIIth, but that's certainly going in the way of technical innovations.

Eventually it was simpler to continue the ongoing trend to trust coloni or barbarians the land, because it was cheaper, allowed (in the case of free and semi-free peasantry) to increase one's clientele, critically when the ongoing political and economical crisis prevented to have a safe base for investements.

 

[RousseauX]

There was a greek guy in I think 53 bc that made a Proto-type steam engine

the steam engine was not all that important to the initial phase of industrialization

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

AIUI, the key to an ancient or medieval society undergoing an industrial revolution is that it must first go through a capitalist revolution -- that is to say, a commercial driven economy with a wealthy, independent middle class. Yes there are other prerequisites -- population, cities, machinery, etc -- but plenty of ancient empires had those, and "Capitalism" only really came into its own in the past five centuries or so.

Personally, I like the idea of an alternate Japanese unification following the Sengoku leading to the continued thriving of the merchants, as well as a degree of social mobility and what have you, enjoying a fairly long peacetime growth.

As to the question of slavery and industrialism/capitalism, it's kind of an old debate on this board, though usually discussed in terms of slavery surviving further industry (e.g. Would the CSA have kept slavery?").

 

[RousseauX]

First you need an agricultural revolution of the sort you had in the Middle Ages, and again with colonialism and the Columbian exchange to create a surplus to feed non-producing industrial workers in cottages and later in cities.

The commercial revolution was also vital because it allowed access to capital for entrepreneurs, development of transportation technology, particularly in shipping was vital in the creation of markets which fuels demand for industrial goods.

In all of this I actually don't necessarily see slavery as an impediment directly, rather what would be an impediment is if the slave owning class sees industries as a threat and block it politically.

People have a tendency of focusing on hardware when it comes to industrialization while in reality software matters way more.

 

[scholar]

AIUI, the key to an ancient or medieval society undergoing an industrial revolution is that it must first go through a capitalist revolution -- that is to say, a commercial driven economy with a wealthy, independent middle class. Yes there are other prerequisites -- population, cities, machinery, etc -- but plenty of ancient empires had those, and "Capitalism" only really came into its own in the past five centuries or so.

As to the question of slavery and industrialism/capitalism, it's kind of an old debate on this board, though usually discussed in terms of slavery surviving further industry (e.g. Would the CSA have kept slavery?").

Are you sure about that? I would hesitate to refer to either the Soviet Union, the Empire of Japan, or several other nations part of the capitalist revolution. That said, it can be argued that there were proto-capitalist attitudes inside of the Roman Empire and in the Greek World with the heavily independent entrepreneurial spirit. China, for its part in this discussion, maintained certain state monopolies and then let everything else run on its own believing that the government should not be involved in the administration of trade for there is some kind of underlying harmony to the process.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

The mills of Great Britain and the slave plantations of the American South were all part of the same economy. The fact that they were separated by an ocean, had different backers, and operated under different governments doesn't change that. It was cotton that was produced by slaves and was then worked in factories that was the main engine of industrialization.

In fact, it was the cheapness of the raw material that was of such importance, and we see this in any example of mechanization or industrialization. Steam engines were developed in places where their raw material (coal) was cheap (coal mines). Paper mills were developed when there was an abundance of scrap cloth, and printing was developed when their was an abundance of paper.

My understanding is that the cotton used in the textile mills of the early industrial revolution predominantly came from the Ottomans and Indians (India). It was only after the development of the cotton gin that American cotton gained significant market share in Britain.

Second, the key developments of the industrial revolution were taking the raw material and converting it to a finished good. That is the innovation we are talking about. Access to a low cost raw materials is a relevant precondition. But its the conversion that mattered in the industrial revolution. And, my contention is that if you had slave labor, or serf labor for that matter, it likely would have forestalled the industrial revolution.

Access to cheap raw materials is important. It allows you to produce a good that is affordable to your end market. But a cheap raw material does not inherently lead to industrialization. Demand for mass goods by a consumer class does that.

 

[Lucius Verus]

There was a greek guy in I think 53 bc that made a Proto-type steam engine

The Japanese also made high grade steel with skilled metalsmiths, but it was expensive , took alot of fuel, logistics, and education. The ancients can achieve high quality products, but not in an economical fashion. Also you're referring to a trinket that spun when heated, a far cry from high-pressure/low-pressure steam engines.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

You seem to be assuming that people will not like to lower their expenses when they have slaves, contrary to popular opinion there is no functional difference between the paying of subsistence wages and slavery from a resource perspective. You are still spending resources roughly equal to provide for the continued survival of the worker/slave. The difference is all social and political, not economical.

One can only pay subsistence wages if there is an oversupply of labor relative to the opportunities that exist. Slavery and serfdom limit opportunities that exist in that you are tied to the landholder so you can enforce subsistence wages. A legally free labor force will see wages fluctuate based on economic conditions. So for a time you may see them be one in the same or even see legally free labor as cheaper than slave labor if supply dramatically increases, particularly from immigration. But to suggest the differences are all social and political is just not correct.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Are you sure about that? I would hesitate to refer to either the Soviet Union, the Empire of Japan, or several other nations part of the capitalist revolution.

I couldn't go into detail, but didn't Meiji Japan have an economic revolution of sorts? (I recall an article somewhere which talked about reforms establishing strong property rights in this period.) And I thought the zaibatsu monopolizing of Japan didn't really start until after the Great Kanto Earthquake, before which Japan had much more market competition, etc? (As to the USSR, obviously the Industrial Revolution had already changed the Russian economy, to say nothing of the world, by that point; we're talking, I presume, about the transition from pre-industrial to industrial economy, not just economic growth in general.)

China, for its part in this discussion, maintained certain state monopolies and then let everything else run on its own believing that the government should not be involved in the administration of trade for there is some kind of underlying harmony to the process.

"Capitalism", I should clarify, doesn't really mean laissez faire, so much as the growth of a strong, independent middle class with an appetite for consumer goods, thus supplying the demand for a commerce driven economy. (The "Capitalist Revolution" of OTL is also called "the Consumer Revolution", if that helps.) It's only in this kind of economy that the cost of human labor can become high enough that "mechanical" solutions become cost efficient, and then it's off to the races.

That said, it can be argued that there were proto-capitalist attitudes inside of the Roman Empire and in the Greek World with the heavily independent entrepreneurial spirit.

But did they have a strong bourgeoise described above? I had thought merchants traded things like wine, food, or slaves, only really selling non-essentials to the rich.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

One other relevant consideration for the OP was the recognition of property rights via patents. IIRC, most if not all of the initial inventions relevant to the early industrial revolution were patented. I am unfamiliar with views of property rights during the Antiquity but I am guessing they were less developed than 18th century British patents.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

But did they have a strong bourgeoise described above? I had thought merchants traded things like wine, food, or slaves, only really selling non-essentials to the rich.

Maybe this is a could POD: Trajan survives and "wins" in Persia, thus Mesopotamia with the Persian gulf is annexed and Parthia becomes a Roman client state. With the trading routes to China and India (here the direct one using the Strait of Hormuz) now beeing open for Roman merchants without tarrifs and the danger of pirates, a new class of Roman shipowner and shareholder can form; the capital drain to Asia is avoided as the main profit in the now direct trade remains with Roman and Greek tradesman and later, when trade develops, joint-stock companies lead by Equites.

The new Greek/Medditeranean (and per definition also Roman trade network) class of capitalists firstly invests only in agriculture, but after this sector is saturated, they can chose other parts of the economy like Roman "industry".

 

[scholar]

One can only pay subsistence wages if there is an oversupply of labor relative to the opportunities that exist. Slavery and serfdom limit opportunities that exist in that you are tied to the landholder so you can enforce subsistence wages. A legally free labor force will see wages fluctuate based on economic conditions. So for a time you may see them be one in the same or even see legally free labor as cheaper than slave labor if supply dramatically increases, particularly from immigration. But to suggest the differences are all social and political is just not correct.

There are two problems here: first I think you misunderstand the Roman system, second you have missed the point. If wages fluctuate, then unless their wage is directly tied to what they need to subsist, it is not a subsistence wage. Further, a legally free labor pool coexisted with the slave labor pool in the Roman state and often worked together on the same projects, supplementing each other. One should not think that this economy was a slave one and one should not think this economy was run on free men.

But, since you are suggesting my point is incorrect, please point out the difference between a slave owner putting forward say 10 units to provide for a slave's continued subsistence and that very same man paying 10 unites directly to the free labor pool he is drawing from per head to provide for their continued subsistence. Expense wise, there is no difference. If economic conditions cause wages to fluctuate, so long as the wage is tied directly to subsistence the cost is the same. If free labor employs more bargaining power, then the example ceases to be true to the initial idea of paying subsistence wages.

 

[scholar]

But did they have a strong bourgeoise described above? I had thought merchants traded things like wine, food, or slaves, only really selling non-essentials to the rich.

This depends on both location and what your interpretation of the Roman state is. Carthage for its part was built around bourgeois mercantilism, and while that state was destroyed, the economic functions it performed merely reorientated elsewhere. For the most part, one could describe the ascent of a very small group of people who were no where near as rich or as powerful as the rich, but significantly better off than the vast majority of the population. We know almost nothing about them, most of modern scholarly analysis is retroactively inferring details through sociological and anthropological reinterpretation.

So to answer your question, you need to pick your interpretation from the various arguing academics sprawling across the study of antiquity. Granted there are far fewer examples of this, than there are to the contrary.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

But, since you are suggesting my point is incorrect, please point out the difference between a slave owner putting forward say 10 units to provide for a slave's continued subsistence and that very same man paying 10 unites directly to the free labor pool he is drawing from per head to provide for their continued subsistence. Expense wise, there is no difference. If economic conditions cause wages to fluctuate, so long as the wage is tied directly to subsistence the cost is the same. If free labor employs more bargaining power, then the example ceases to be true to the initial idea of paying subsistence wages.

Let's think in terms of the economics to a plantation owner in antebellum South - say he owns 20 slaves. The slaves will probably build/maintain their own dwellings on the property and it will be located on a non-productive part of the plantation. So there is little economic cost to putting up the dwellings or for the labor of construction. Already your housing costs our cheaper. Any food you provide can be purchased in bulk, which is cheaper than buying for a family of 3 or 4. Presumably clothing would be the same. So at a subsistence level, if the plantation owner has any basic competency in business, perhaps a questionable proposition but appropriate nonetheless, it should be cheaper than individual subsistence living.

Further, your subsistence proposition is a little superficial to the actual issues. Take a carpenter, blacksmith or a maid. A free worker engaged in those occupations might very well live above a subsistence level. Their ability to do so would be dependent upon the wealth of the employers in the area and the supply of fellow tradesmen or maids. Further, the negotiating power for this labor could change dramatically as they are free to seek employment elsewhere. A blacksmith or English maid working for an estate on the Hudson in 1840 could live better off than the equivalent slave in Virginia. Even if the slave is highly skilled he has no ability to negotiate his services or seek out a higher paying employer. The only circumstance where the freeman is in a comparable or worse state is where he is unskilled labor and/or there is an oversupply of it.

I am relatively ignorant on the specifics of Roman slavery so perhaps this is less applicable to them.

 

[scholar]

I am relatively ignorant on the specifics of Roman slavery so perhaps this is less applicable to them.

Slavery in the Roman Empire could range from far worse than Antebellum South (with regards to mines, almost universally conquered enemies), to better than the most educated and free intellectuals (Tutors to the rich and privileged in the art of rhetoric, philosophy, history, and other subjects). Many free laborers actually would sell themselves into slavery, since they would be better taken care of. Further, some slaves actually had decent amounts of liberty and mobility, and there is at least some mention of people loaning out their slaves to work on varied work projects. Lastly, many slaves could earn their way back to freedom, should they be contractual slaves rather than conquered enemies. And even then, the later could be released upon the owner's consent - usually taking place with wills.

I don't mean to glorify that, one should be very careful when it comes to that, but it is a fundamentally different animal.

 

[Faeelin]

Isn't it also a bit much to say that the Roman Empire was predominantly slave? This was true of Sicily in the 1st century BC, but 3rd century Egypt?

 

[scholar]

Isn't it also a bit much to say that the Roman Empire was predominantly slave? This was true of Sicily in the 1st century BC, but 3rd century Egypt?

It depends on the region and time, some were predominately slave based economies, others were predominately free. However, the enslaved population of the Roman Empire probably peaked under the Military Dynasts being about 35% of the empire's total population. It was less under the Pax Augusta, and even less during the third century to the point where there was a veritable labor crisis, if what we can gather about the period's economy is true. The practice largely disappeared in favor of feudalism a couple centuries after that.

 

[LSCatilina]

Isn't it also a bit much to say that the Roman Empire was predominantly slave? This was true of Sicily in the 1st century BC, but 3rd century Egypt?

Predominantly slave is certainly too much, but there again, the point is less how many (it could range from 1/3 in Italy after the great conquests of the Ist BC, to 1/10 in 3rd CE in Egypt) than what were their place in the production.

It seems that slaves were used, when it comes to market production, in great numbers and under more or less direct control (at the contrary of free peasantry or sometimes paied urban slaves).

The practice largely disappeared in favor of feudalism a couple centuries after that.

Definitely not. Even assuming feudalism is an economic concept (which is not, but I think you meant manioralism), slavery was well alive up to the Xth or XIth centuries in most regions (up to 10% in the late XIth century in England) and remained important enough on mediterranean basin during the Middle-Ages (even with a different place in the productive system, as specialised workers, except in agricultural production as sugar in Spain).