Determining the characteristics of slavery and defining what it means to be a slave society has garnered considerable attention in American historiography. Peter Kolchin’s Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom attempts to clarify our understanding of both topics through a comparative study of these two labor systems. By juxtaposing these two institutions, Kolchin is able to highlight similarities and differences. He concludes a labor shortage in their respective societies created the need for bound workers in order to support the landholding elite. He also contends both American slavery and Russian serfdom were “fundamentally noncapitalist productive systems.” (359-361) However, despite these similarities, significant differences
…show more content…
At multiple points Kolchin describes debates within various historiographies and then simply declares which side he agrees with, as opposed to offering any new interpretation. One of the times he does attempt to contribute to the debate on the topic of the conversion to slave labor in seventeenth century Virginia. This is more than a minor point because of his assertion that the implementation of slave labor within a society is always preceded by a scarcity of labor. The main argument put forth by the author is that until 1680, English indentured servants were in such abundance it was unnecessary for Virginia planters to consider using significant numbers of African slaves. Additionally, the mortality rates in the Chesapeake and high price of slaves resulted in them being a poor long-term investment. Finally, the ability of indentured servants to speak English and the familiarity with European customs meant planters simply preferred to use them. Towards the end of the eighteenth century this patterned reversed, and as the availability of English indentured servants decreased, the importation of African slaves necessarily increased. …show more content…
He concludes that the institution was neither modern, nor capitalistic, and that although it did not destroy the region’s economy it did impede its development of industrialization and mechanization. The author specifically addresses what he considers to be the blind-spot of econometricians who emphasized the economic efficiency of American slavery in the South. Despite a rapidly expanding economy, Kolchin argues that the region was not undergoing the Northern states’ industrial or social development. He stresses the importance of transportation, mechanization, and education. (370-372) By downplaying the significance of rapid economic growth, he is attempting to categorize the South as backward and inefficient; a system destined to collapse under its poor foundations. In a similar fashion, Kolchin describes the South as non-capitalistic, determining that the productive relations were far more important than the distributive relations in classifying its capitalist orientation. He makes this conclusion by stating that the labor system lacked what he considered to be capitalism’s most important element, a labor for hire market. Regardless of how capitalistic slave-holders remained, or how market oriented the system was in general, this absence of a market of labor was incongruent with the principles of capitalism. (360) In both of his non-modern and non-capitalism
At multiple points Kolchin describes debates within various historiographies and then simply declares which side he agrees with, as opposed to offering any new interpretation. One of the times he does attempt to contribute to the debate on the topic of the conversion to slave labor in seventeenth century Virginia. This is more than a minor point because of his assertion that the implementation of slave labor within a society is always preceded by a scarcity of labor. The main argument put forth by the author is that until 1680, English indentured servants were in such abundance it was unnecessary for Virginia planters to consider using significant numbers of African slaves. Additionally, the mortality rates in the Chesapeake and high price of slaves resulted in them being a poor long-term investment. Finally, the ability of indentured servants to speak English and the familiarity with European customs meant planters simply preferred to use them. Towards the end of the eighteenth century this patterned reversed, and as the availability of English indentured servants decreased, the importation of African slaves necessarily increased. …show more content…
He concludes that the institution was neither modern, nor capitalistic, and that although it did not destroy the region’s economy it did impede its development of industrialization and mechanization. The author specifically addresses what he considers to be the blind-spot of econometricians who emphasized the economic efficiency of American slavery in the South. Despite a rapidly expanding economy, Kolchin argues that the region was not undergoing the Northern states’ industrial or social development. He stresses the importance of transportation, mechanization, and education. (370-372) By downplaying the significance of rapid economic growth, he is attempting to categorize the South as backward and inefficient; a system destined to collapse under its poor foundations. In a similar fashion, Kolchin describes the South as non-capitalistic, determining that the productive relations were far more important than the distributive relations in classifying its capitalist orientation. He makes this conclusion by stating that the labor system lacked what he considered to be capitalism’s most important element, a labor for hire market. Regardless of how capitalistic slave-holders remained, or how market oriented the system was in general, this absence of a market of labor was incongruent with the principles of capitalism. (360) In both of his non-modern and non-capitalism