> There is a huge difference between serfs and slaves.
Bullshit. Also, when you say "Yes, they were tied to specific piece of land but in return also got the protection of the lord in times of war", that was generally true of chattel slaves as well - owners like to protect what they see as their property, after all.
> Formal conversion to serf status and the later ban on the sale of serfs without land did not stop the trade in household slaves; this trade merely changed its name. The private owners of the serfs regarded the law as a mere formality. Instead of "sale of a peasant" the papers would advertise "servant for hire" or similar.
> By the eighteenth century, the practice of selling serfs without land had become commonplace. Owners had absolute control over their serfs' lives, and could buy, sell and trade them at will, giving them as much power over serfs as Americans had over chattel slaves, though owners did not always choose to exercise their powers over serfs to the fullest extent.
The Russian Empire was one of the most underdeveloped and economically impoverished forces in Europe. So yeah, my point.
People here focus on the aspect of freedom which isn't really that important. That is a more modern idea that we see when capitalism develops and there is an actual free workforce.
The point again is economic incentives. Slaves have the incentives to avoid the whip and otherwise work as slowly as possible. Most forms of serfdom allowed working part of the land for yourselves and getting to keep some of which you produce. So you have an interest in being efficient in your work.
> The Russian Empire was one of the most underdeveloped and economically impoverished forces in Europe.
The Russian Empire was considered a "Great Power" for nearly 400 years. Sure, the lives of the average citizen sucked just like that of slaves, but the lords in Russia were able to harness their labor for nearly unfathomable levels of wealth and domination.
The idea that serfs somehow worked harder because "they got to keep some of what they produced" is just pure fantasy. Serfs had to work hard because a lot of the time they were on the verge of starvation.
The Russian Empire was far behind Western Europe in terms of economic development. People still used the wooden plow in the beginning of the 20th century. Something like 80 or 90 percent of the population still lived in villages.
I not really sure what point you are making. I mean no one is going argue that the Russian model of serfdom was a good idea?
> The idea that serfs somehow worked harder because "they got to keep some of what they produced" is just pure fantasy. Serfs had to work hard because a lot of the time they were on the verge of starvation.
Slaves are fed regardless of much or little they produce so you are saying serfs they had a pretty big incentive to work harder. Well case in point.
Bullshit. Also, when you say "Yes, they were tied to specific piece of land but in return also got the protection of the lord in times of war", that was generally true of chattel slaves as well - owners like to protect what they see as their property, after all.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia#Slaves_and_s... (and there are other linked sources on that page if you want to follow up):
> Formal conversion to serf status and the later ban on the sale of serfs without land did not stop the trade in household slaves; this trade merely changed its name. The private owners of the serfs regarded the law as a mere formality. Instead of "sale of a peasant" the papers would advertise "servant for hire" or similar.
> By the eighteenth century, the practice of selling serfs without land had become commonplace. Owners had absolute control over their serfs' lives, and could buy, sell and trade them at will, giving them as much power over serfs as Americans had over chattel slaves, though owners did not always choose to exercise their powers over serfs to the fullest extent.