Are serfs and slaves the same?

[Meathead]

Serfs typically entered into an agreement with their master to work in exchange for protection and basic needs being met. Some contracts involved a time period and some sort of compensation at the end of the contract period. No such contracts for slaves.

There parallels between socialism and feudalism, While the serfs doubtless got the short end of the deal,they essentially paid very high taxes in the form of labor, yet were protected against criminals, invaders and crop-failure/famine by the assets of the lords. They could not be bought or sold and were tied to the land. It was essentially a contract which reflects Europe's advanced welfare states of today (high taxes and benefits).

So while not idyllic, being a serf was preferable to being a slave.

 

[rupol2000]

Serfs typically entered into an agreement with their master to work in exchange for protection and basic needs being met. Some contracts involved a time period and some sort of compensation at the end of the contract period. No such contracts for slaves.

This was not serfdom, but the phase that preceded it.

 

[rupol2000]

There parallels between socialism and feudalism

Undoubtedly, since the concepts of feudalism and socialism mean anything, and in everything it is easy to find any parallels.

What you are talking about was at the time when the Huns defeated Rome, and before the Germans took over Europe after the plague.

This is the era of the knights.

A farmer who only pays taxes for the war and feeds on the land will not want to go anywhere, there is no point in enslaving him.

Socialism, in its usual sense, originated among the Prussians during the Bismarck period, and it was herd slavery, not "feudalism."

 

[rupol2000]

Although in Russia under the matrons of the 18th century there was something similar to Prussianism. This was probably also the case in Eastern Europe.

 

[eagle1462010]

One thinks they are free the other doesn't. Feudalism was the ability to starve you and your family to death by the Lord's and masters of the time.

 

[rupol2000]

Now in the European armies, slavery exists in its purest form. This is exactly the kind of barracks slavery that existed in old Europe since the Neolithic times. In general, the main essence of slavery is not that a person is forced to work, but that freedom is taken away and forced to do what the owners want. It is not necessary to work, for example, it can be a sex toy or meat or soldier.

 

[rupol2000]

The system of gulags and collective farms in the 1930s in the USSR is precisely Prussian barracks slavery in its purest form. There was almost slavery in the industrial, too. The labor force was distributed forcibly, and in 1939, a decree was issued banning the change of workplace.

 

[rupol2000]

The word feudalism means about the same as federalism, perhaps there is a connection here. This is not about slavery and serfdom, but about the system of power and its distribution. This means the independence of the fiefdom from the supreme king. The fiefdom could go to war against the king, it was the 2nd amendment to the American constitution, and this ensured the stability of the federation and protected it from decay.

 

[rupol2000]

The American Republic basically remained a feudal state, it is the only such state in the world.

 

[rupol2000]

The American police are essentially the state militia, they are not subordinate to the federal authorities, and most likely it was originally the same as the knight's militia in the Middle Ages.

 

[DudleySmith]

None of this happened, they lived like pigs and could not move, they were in the personal possession of the landlords. Ancient slaves had more rights than they did.

You don't know what you're babbling about, as usual. Try reading more broadly than old Cold War comic books from the Soviet Union.

 

[Blues Man]

A serf was owned by a master. If a serf ran away, the law would return a serf to his master. A serf had to work for his master and wasn't paid.

You couldn't break up a serf's family but in Catholic countries you couldn't break up slave families.

They say that if you bought a farm, it might come with some serfs. I'm sure that's true of slavery too. You could buy a plantation with X amount of slaves for example.

Do you think serfs and slaves are similar?

slaves are considered forms of property owned by other people, serfs are bound to the land they occupy from one generation to another.

 

[Meathead]

One thinks they are free the other doesn't. Feudalism was the ability to starve you and your family to death by the Lord's and masters of the time.

I don't think you understand how feudalism or manorism worked.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

slaves are considered forms of property owned by other people, serfs are bound to the land they occupy from one generation to another.

Serfs are the property of their master. If a serf runs away, the law will return a serf to their master.

If a master kills a serf, nothing will happen to the master.

 

[Mushroom]

Serfs are the property of their master. If a serf runs away, the law will return a serf to their master.

And once again, can you discuss this without the example being based on Russia?

It would be like discussing the history of Slavery, but only talking about the example of the United States.

 

[Meathead]

Serfs are the property of their master. If a serf runs away, the law will return a serf to their master.

If a master kills a serf, nothing will happen to the master.

You have no idea of what your talking about and your use of present tense is equally ridiculous.

It's a very complex subject which varied by location and time.

 

[Blues Man]

Serfs are the property of their master. If a serf runs away, the law will return a serf to their master.

If a master kills a serf, nothing will happen to the master.

read the definition again.

Serfs were bound to the land not the owner of the land

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

A serf was owned by a master. If a serf ran away, the law would return a serf to his master. A serf had to work for his master and wasn't paid.

You couldn't break up a serf's family but in Catholic countries you couldn't break up slave families.

They say that if you bought a farm, it might come with some serfs. I'm sure that's true of slavery too. You could buy a plantation with X amount of slaves for example.

Do you think serfs and slaves are similar?

Your topic title asks if they are the same

But your post asks if they are similar.

They are similar yes, but not the same.

Big difference is that Slaves were bred and the slavemaster owned the children as well. Serfs were/are not bred or owned

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Your topic title asks if they are the same

But your post asks if they are similar.

They are similar yes, but not the same.

Big difference is that Slaves were bred and the slavemaster owned the children as well. Serfs were/are not bred or owned

Masters owned the serfs if the owned the land. They owned the children too. If you sold the land, the kids and the serfs would go with it.

Not all slaves were bred. A lot met in the old fashion way. There were plenty of marriages among slaves even in America.

 

[DudleySmith]

yet were protected against criminals, invaders and crop-failure/famine by the assets of the lords. They could not be bought or sold and were tied to the land. It was essentially a contract which reflects Europe's advanced welfare states of today (high taxes and benefits).

Yes, essentially a protection racket by today's standards, but one a whole lot of people were eager to get jn the aftermath of an empire collapsing and anarchy and banditry making it impossible to plan business and agriculture ; freemen weren't by any means better off than serfs, either, and in fact were worse off in many cases.