Cinderella never had it so good
In the ancient world, there were frequently household members known as 'slaves'. These people were unrelated to the head of the household, would work at the bidding of the head of the household, and would receive a share of household resources. In terms of the notion of Household discussed earlier, there is a need to socially and ritually bring people into a household to share in the work and profits of the household. Naturally, these people may be called, or referred to as, slaves. This word hurts our sensitive, modern ears. We imagine torture and atrocities against African slaves in the Americas, all in the name of white profit. We moderns are very proud to have wiped out this scourge of humanity, and blindly assume that slavery throughout history was equally demeaning and cruel.
I argue that the modern wage-slave is demeaned and tortured and made to suffer atrocities all the time. The fact that their paid some stipend for their effort is hardly an excuse for some of the cruel and uncaring treatment they endure from their corporate employers. On the extreme end of antebellum slavery, American-style, the worst treatment endured by slaves have their echoes in modern industry. Losing limb or life, or other random body parts? Got that covered. Nudity, unwanted sexual encounters, or economic devastation after fighting off a social or sexual predator? Ahh-yup. Got those aplenty in the modern wage-slave world, too. Forced to relocate your whole family, or split them apart? Some things just never change, just the mechanism for torment gets moved a little further from the torturer's fingers.
Antebellum slaves had free room and board, and were generally provided with clothes and goods needed for survival and grooming. They received free medical care (such as it was) and were protected from predators and thieves. Such advantages were not afforded to the contemporary homesteader, nor to the modern wage-slave. So the antebellum slave wasn't free to move about under their own accord, but could be forcibly moved by others. But just how easily can the modern wage-slave move around but that they are laid off or transfered? Economically, few can afford to move on the spur of the moment, and depending on their obligations, movement may not generally be feasible for most.
Lest folks feel this is an exercise in hyperbole, here's a handy chart:
slaves staff Acannot work for others cannot work for others Bbought and sold by others self-marketed Cdirected to work by masters directed to work by bosses Dresults of slave production are owned by the masters results of wage-slave production are owned by the bosses Ereceive no profit from their work receive no profit from their work Fcared for as members of the family no economic obligations for bosses
The social value of slavery in the ancient world was quite high, and there is really no modern comparison to be made. Perhaps the most accurate description of slaves is that they were the unrelated members of the household. Their economic participation in the household is rewarded with food and goods in proportion to that received by the other members of the family -- the able-bodied are obliged to produce, but all members share commonly in the resources of the household.
It is true that slaves in the ancient world were bought and sold, or captured from enemy villages or warcamps. However, in the ancient world, any entry or exit from a household is accompanied by an exchange of goods or currency in order to compensate for the loss of household labor. Marital arrangements regularly included a dowry, and the junior branch would generally compensate the senior when a new household was begun, for any members taken.
The obligation for caring for a slave fell to the owner: those among the 'free' who were unable to care for themselves would sell themselves into slavery so that they might find themselves in a more fortunate house. It was not uncommon during difficult periods for parents to sell their kids into slavery in order to insure their survival. Also frequent in ancient times were changes in 'slave' status, such that a man could be free and enslaved many times during his life. Slaves had some property and ownership rights in many quarters, and could even own their own slaves.
In the context of a Household that was (a) self-sufficient, (b) culturally homogeneous, and (c) economically relevant: there must be enough able-bodied adults to manage all the daily tasks required to meet these three goals. Polygamy may be a good way to grow a workforce, but on the short term, bringing in (mature and skilled) outsiders into the household makes better economic sense. Economies of scale make it cheaper to provide resources for a larger household than a smaller one. Given a choice between scraping by in too-small a household and living more comfortably in a larger one, it's not hard to imagine why slavery was so common in the ancient world.