Stagnation of Technology?

Looking at the radar, rocketry, computational power, aerospace and atomic power of the 20th Century, the Third Reich was a bit player, and its use of slave labor wasted more productivity than it gained.

I agree that there were certain areas where the allies were more advanced, such as the atomic bomb.

The Germans were certainly not bit players. They were ahead of the rest in rocketry (V2), and they were the first to produce an effective jet fighter (ME 262)

How did slave labor waste productivity?

I agree that there were certain areas where the allies were more advanced, such as the atomic bomb.

 

The Germans were certainly not bit players. They were ahead of the rest in rocketry (V2), and they were the first to produce an effective jet fighter (ME 262)

 

How did slave labor waste productivity?

The V2 was a propaganda device and is a perfect example of both the backwardness of the Nazi regime and its waste of productivity. Of all the weapon systems produced during WWII, none but the V2 has the ignominious distinction of having caused more deaths in its production than its actual deployment! The fact is that the V2 was a total failure -- each V2 cost 100,000 Reichmarks, 1/3 of the total alcohol production of the 3rd Reich, its guidance system was too primitive to hit any intended target (unless you count LONDON as a target!), and as a weapon was worth less than 1/4 of a conventional bomber. The only reason the Nazis even resorted to such a stupid system was that the war was already lost, and they hoped that the mere novelty of the V2 would somehow fool the allies into thinking the Nazis were stronger than the impoverished, backward state that they were in actuality.

Since you wanted to use the Third Reich as a some paragon of the 20th century, I'd just point out that the rockets used by Americans were VASTLY superor, capable of landing a man on the moon and with no use of slave labor.

Since you wanted to use the Third Reich as a some paragon of the 20th century, I'd just point out that the rockets used by Americans were VASTLY superor, capable of landing a man on the moon and with no use of slave labor.

You mean the American rockets designed by a former member of the SS?

I agree that slavery inhibited adoption of technology, but adoption isn't the same as innovation.

It could be that slavery undermined adoption more than innovation per se.

I do not believe in a correlation between slavery and creativity.

 

If you don't believe in a correlation between slavery and the spread of technology, what is the argument you're making with respect to the cotton gin? If there's no correlation, what's your point?

Ummm... that there is no correlation between the two? Some inventions can led to an increase of slavery while other to a decrease of it while there is no proof that slavery influences invention.

WW2 era Germans made a great number of technological firsts like: first computer, first ballistic missile, first jet fighter, first nerve gas, first assault rifle etc. The fact that these (and countless innovations in chemistry - synthetic materials, etc) did not play a decisive role does not mean that German scientists were not highly innovative.

BTW the soviets used slave labor even more then the nazis.

I'd just point out that the rockets used by Americans were VASTLY superor, capable of landing a man on the moon and with no use of slave labor.

What rockets did the Americans have in 1944?

If you're going to denegrate the V2 because it couldn't land a man on the moon, why not dismiss the Wright brothers since their plane was incapable of a transatlantic flight?

Rocket science had to evolve over the years, and of course it was more advanced in 1969 when we landed on the moon. The V2 remains historically the prototype from which modern rockets evolved.

And no I don't regard the 3rd Reich as the paragon of the 20th century. I used them as an example of a regime that was technologically advanced despite being oppressive. One could also use Soviet Russia as another example.

I really really really want to respond to misconceptions regarding Soviet and Nazi technological prowess, but ... this is supposed to be a site on ancient Rome. So, let's try this another way -- among the ancient Hellenistic states, which relied MOST on slave labor? Which relied LEAST on slave labor? Among these states, where was technological innovation highest and where was it lowest?

I really really really want to respond to misconceptions regarding Soviet and Nazi technological prowess, but ... this is supposed to be a site on ancient Rome. So, let's try this another way -- among the ancient Hellenistic states, which relied MOST on slave labor? Which relied LEAST on slave labor? Among these states, where was technological innovation highest and where was it lowest?

I agree that we got away from the issue at hand. We could probably open a separate discussion in another category.

Which relied most/least on slave labor? That's a goood question. I would defer to the scholars.

It seems to me that technological innovation was greatest in Hellenistic Egypt. But let's not forget about Archimedes who as I recall lived in Sicily.

Ummm... that there is no correlation between the two? Some inventions can led to an increase of slavery while other to a decrease of it

No one is making any claims about the effect of technology on slavery; the claim is that slavery has a negative effect on (some) technology. And let's be clear about what kind of technology-- labor-saving devices. The claim is that if you have cost-free labor (a questionable assumption about slaves to be sure), then it's easier to add another slave to get more work done than to purchase some kind of device that will do it for you. Given this, all this discussion about weaponry is completely beside the point.

Ummm... that there is no correlation between the two? Some inventions can led to an increase of slavery while other to a decrease of it

 

No one is making any claims about the effect of technology on slavery; the claim is that slavery has a negative effect on (some) technology. And let's be clear about what kind of technology-- labor-saving devices. The claim is that if you have cost-free labor (a questionable assumption about slaves to be sure), then it's easier to add another slave to get more work done than to purchase some kind of device that will do it for you. Given this, all this discussion about weaponry is completely beside the point.

Thanks for clearing the air. I agree.

Somewhere in the Life of Vespasian there's an interesting comment. Someone came up with an innovative device which would make building the Flavian amphitheater easier. Vespasian rewarded the man, but declined to use his invention, saying it take the bread from the mouths of his workmen.

Somewhere in the Life of Vespasian there's an interesting comment. Someone came up with an innovative device which would make building the Flavian amphitheater easier. Vespasian rewarded the man, but declined to use his invention, saying it take the bread from the mouths of his workmen.

That is interesting. Higher ups in an organization often stand in the way of large technological improvements. Fascinating to see a specific case of that transmitted all the way from Roman times.

So perhaps the move from small farmers and entrepreneurs towards large Latifundia and state run enterprises removed the individuals drive to innovate? To clarify, I don't mean state run enterprises in the sense of the Soviet Union, rather I mean state run as in the large construction projects. Construction of the Flavian amphitheater was directed from the top down and not contracted out (if Maty is right). And armorers, after the Marian reforms individuals no longer directly purchased their armor from a small smithy. I'd suppose the state efficiently produced large amounts of armor in more centralized facilities.

So, let's try this another way -- among the ancient Hellenistic states, which relied MOST on slave labor? Which relied LEAST on slave labor? Among these states, where was technological innovation highest and where was it lowest?

Is this line of questioning going anywhere counselor?

... the claim is that slavery has a negative effect on (some) technology. And let's be clear about what kind of technology-- labor-saving devices. The claim is that if you have cost-free labor (a questionable assumption about slaves to be sure), then it's easier to add another slave to get more work done than to purchase some kind of device that will do it for you.

Ok.

Let's go back to the cotton gin for a little bit.

This labor-saving device was quickly adapted by many slave-owning cotton plantations instead of adding more slaves to the job of separating fibers from seeds. They chose a new device over adding another slave.

US was also among the first countries to have a machine powered textile industry while having a great number of slaves. Those factory owners choose machinery over a slave workforce for their enterprises.

Generally, modern slavery did not employed slaves in manufacture so in the area where most labor-saving devices were developed adding a new slave may not have been an option so modern comparisons may not be very useful.

Going back to the romans we see a development of water-powered labor-saving devices despite having ample slavery including in manufacture. So romans decided to build water-powered grain mills (large and complex systems on Janiculum and in Barbigal) instead of using more slaves or animals to power the grinds.

Let's go back to the cotton gin for a little bit.

This labor-saving device was quickly adapted by many slave-owning cotton plantations instead of adding more slaves to the job of separating fibers from seeds. They chose a new device over adding another slave.

US was also among the first countries to have a machine powered textile industry while having a great number of slaves. Those factory owners choose machinery over a slave workforce for their enterprises.

But your example of the US supports my point much better than you realize because there's an absolutely essential distinction that you're failing to draw here: the difference between the North and the South. In the Northern US, where slavery was illegal, you had a vast textile industry, as well as industrial production of farm equipment, a very high use of farm machinery per acre of land, massive demand for steel (and thus iron and coal), with railroads and steam-ships carrying these goods, all crossing territories that had been inhabited only by Indians back when Southern states were celebrating 50 years of independence from Britain. In the Southern US, where slavery was legal, industry of all sorts was backward and sparse. Thus, over a single generation, the part of the US that had slaves was living with roughly the same level of technology and civilization that had existed around the turn of the 19th century, whereas the part of the US where slavery was illegal required, rewarded, and spread the technology that did more work than the sum total of the entire slave population of the South. If you're really interested in pursuing this point seriously, you really should read more in-depth American economic history.

Generally, modern slavery did not employed slaves in manufacture so in the area where most labor-saving devices were developed adding a new slave may not have been an option so modern comparisons may not be very useful.

And WHY don't manufacturers prefer slave labor? Have you ever worked in manufacture? It would be obvious: machines break down, require maintenance, and above all require BRAINS and SKILL. Yet educated slaves are a nuisance -- they're always looking for ways to escape, to regain their freedom, and to get out of work. More than that, an educated slave makes one fact quite obvious: they are human beings like anyone else, not "living tools". It's awfully hard to maintain a slave population and a high level of technology (witness North Korea).

Going back to the romans we see a development of water-powered labor-saving devices despite having ample slavery including in manufacture. So romans decided to build water-powered grain mills (large and complex systems on Janiculum and in Barbigal) instead of using more slaves or animals to power the grinds.

First off, an issue like "the effect of slavery on labor-saving technology" won't be settled by trading anecdotes. If slavery reduces the adoption of labor-saving technology 50%, 500%, or 5000%, there will still be SOME technology where slavery is practiced. Consequently, it's entirely possible that Rome would have seen greater use of technology had it abolished slavery AND that Rome used labor-saving devices like water-powered grain mills. (The same point applies to the cotton gin, btw.) Second, Janiculum and Barbigal each present some unique factors that affect the marginal utility of slave labor. One issue is the the opportunity cost of putting a slave to work on a low-profit activity like milling when there are higher-profit jobs to which the slaves can be put. In a situation where slaves could earn more for their masters by prostitution (or other activities) than by milling, we shouldn't find technology replacing slave labor to be too surprising. Another issue is the steady supply of slaves: if the demand for slave labor is elastic, whereas the supply of slave labor is relatively inelastic, we would also expect to find technology replacing slave labor. However, in the aggregate, these types of factors should tend to wash out, leaving a main (negative) effect of slavery on labor-saving technology, just as we see in the American case.

Also, the optimistic comparisons above are based on a society wide adoption principle. Archaeological evidence confirms that mostly water driven machinery was created by the Romans, but not all of them. In other words, any technological advances were local in scope (though there were exceptions, like concrete, but that might be argued to be a 'secret' that got out).

As I mentioned above, the communication of ideas in a culture that based its dynamism on ruthless competition is hardly likely to share ideas on an open forum (pardon the pun). Further, since the patrons were not investing in new ideas, being essentially conservative image concious politicians, there was no background of financial backing.

Technology didn't stagnate - it never really caught on.

But your example of the US supports my point much better than you realize because there's an absolutely essential distinction that you're failing to draw here: the difference between the North and the South. In the Northern US, where slavery was illegal, you had a vast textile industry, as well as industrial production of farm equipment, a very high use of farm machinery per acre of land, massive demand for steel (and thus iron and coal), with railroads and steam-ships carrying these goods, all crossing territories that had been inhabited only by Indians back when Southern states were celebrating 50 years of independence from Britain. In the Southern US, where slavery was legal, industry of all sorts was backward and sparse. Thus, over a single generation, the part of the US that had slaves was living with roughly the same level of technology and civilization that had existed around the turn of the 19th century, whereas the part of the US where slavery was illegal required, rewarded, and spread the technology that did more work than the sum total of the entire slave population of the South. If you're really interested in pursuing this point seriously, you really should read more in-depth American economic history.

And my in-depth study of American economic history will tell me that once, what you identify as the primary cause of Southern backwardness, slavery, was gone the South became a powerhouse of industry, banking and trade with a lot of innovation? The same that happened in Jamaica and Haiti when slavery was gone?

And WHY don't manufacturers prefer slave labor? Have you ever worked in manufacture? It would be obvious: machines break down, require maintenance, and above all require BRAINS and SKILL. Yet educated slaves are a nuisance -- they're always looking for ways to escape, to regain their freedom, and to get out of work. More than that, an educated slave makes one fact quite obvious: they are human beings like anyone else, not "living tools". It's awfully hard to maintain a slave population and a high level of technology (witness North Korea).

Factories used forced labor before, during and after the Industrial Revolution but why modern industry preferred a free workforce it's another debate. The first textile machines were so effective at labor saving that the cost of labor for machine workers was not in a real competition with the huge cost of pre-industrial workers free or slave. The high productivity resulted from technology allowed the West to flourish for the last two centuries despite a higher cost of labor.

First off, an issue like "the effect of slavery on labor-saving technology" won't be settled by trading anecdotes. If slavery reduces the adoption of labor-saving technology 50%, 500%, or 5000%, there will still be SOME technology where slavery is practiced. Consequently, it's entirely possible that Rome would have seen greater use of technology had it abolished slavery AND that Rome used labor-saving devices like water-powered grain mills. (The same point applies to the cotton gin, btw.) Second, Janiculum and Barbigal each present some unique factors that affect the marginal utility of slave labor. One issue is the the opportunity cost of putting a slave to work on a low-profit activity like milling when there are higher-profit jobs to which the slaves can be put. In a situation where slaves could earn more for their masters by prostitution (or other activities) than by milling, we shouldn't find technology replacing slave labor to be too surprising. Another issue is the steady supply of slaves: if the demand for slave labor is elastic, whereas the supply of slave labor is relatively inelastic, we would also expect to find technology replacing slave labor. However, in the aggregate, these types of factors should tend to wash out, leaving a main (negative) effect of slavery on labor-saving technology, just as we see in the American case.

So, slavery did not prevent SOME innovation but it may have been MORE innovation if there was no slavery, a statement that obviously can not be proven.

Regarding one of your earlier questions I believe that the Classical Athenian democracy that ruthlessly exploited large numbers of slaves in the silver mines in Laurium was the most innovative society of it's time.