Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#81

Post by Majromax »

vorpalhex wrote: post #80
MisterTea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "With slaves, however, who were stakeholders in the system," "With slaves, however, who's stakes were forcibly held by others in the system," FTFY

You aren't the only person making this mistake but don't assume Roman slavery was like American chattel slavery. Roman slavery was still slavery and still had abuses but it was not "slavery till death, for all your generations". Nor were slaves mere physical labor. Slaves often ran businesses, engaged in basically white collar work, and often times were skilled craftsmen who exceeded their masters skill.

> Nor were slaves mere physical labor.

Some slaves were not mere physical labour. However, many famers and miners were still enslaved people, worked in far more brutal conditions without the hope of manumission.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#82

Post by nerdponx »

inglor_cz wrote: post #63
MisterTea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "With slaves, however, who were stakeholders in the system," "With slaves, however, who's stakes were forcibly held by others in the system," FTFY

Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. The prospect of manumission was a huge incentive for the slave to work harder and smarter. Some freedmen became very rich. The slaveowners could theoretically renege on their promise, but rarely did so, because they…

"Skin in the game" though it might be, these enslaved individuals only became stakeholders by force, and not by choice. I think the analogy to business is still act, but with a bit more of a sinister connotation.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#83

Post by nerdponx »

libraryatnight wrote: post #75
inglor_cz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. The prospect of manumission was a huge incentive for the slave to work harder and smarter. Some freedmen became very rich. The slaveowners could theoretically renege on their promise, but rarely did so, because they…

was there a pricing structure for buying one's freedom, or was it up to each master?

Once I saw this great documentary called A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. It does a great job of explaining the system and structure, and with colorful characters at that!

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#84

Post by robgibbons »

jacquesm wrote: post #54
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For an encore: Sex tips by rapists, explosive manufacture by suicide bombers, vegetarian cooking by A. Hitler, marketing tips from J. Goebbels and how to run a start-up by Elizabeth Holmes." I understand that you wrote it in jest, but isn't Goebbels studied precisely due to the nature of marketing ( propaganda ) he employed? I personally find it interesting. Why does association work so well? Why does it automatical…

The US (and Russian, by the way) appropriation of German scientists and Nazi party members post WWII is certainly controversial and there are plenty of people who strongly believe that they should have stood trial in Nuremberg instead of being given a new job with plenty of perks. As Tom Lehrer wrote: "Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical. "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they co…

In contrast to the satirical lyric by Tom Lehrer, here's an actual quote attributed to von Braun:

“The rocket worked perfectly, except for landing on the wrong planet.“ — Wernher von Braun remark to a colleague after the first V-2 rocket hit London (September 1944), as quoted in Apollo in Perspective: Spaceflight Then and Now (1999) by Jonathan Allday, p. 85

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#85

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #65
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, in your opinion, was it the right thing for US to do? Say you are Truman. You are responsible for US and how it fares on the world stage. What would be the right thing to do? Show trials in Nuremberg will satisfy the public. Useful heads and knowledge at the very least would be prevented from going to Russia, where who knows what they would work on. If Braun was truly apolitical, history timeline could have easi…

Utilitarian arguments and ethics rarely go together well, hence 'realpolitik'. What my opinion is on the matter is irrelevant, history has run its course and here we are. We're well into 'old man lost his horse' territory now, of course you never know what the utility of a particular event is in the longer term. The doctor that saves the baby's life may well have caused a mass murderer to live a long and productive l…

I agree.

We are just two random people on the internet discussing things passed.

One never really knows what the action is going to ultimately accomplish, but if the opinion on that particular matter is irrelevant, why is the following opinion relevant:

"Those are books I can do without."?

If the history has ran its course, does it matter?

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#86

Post by ancode »

jrm4 wrote: post #69

A thing we still need to work on when we tell history: We need to further distinguish Roman slavery from American Chattel slavery. Roman slavery is more like a permanent version of "Indentured Servitude" that we learned here in the states, aka how poor white kids could make it in e.g. Revolutionary times. And not much at all like the "Slavery" that looms bigger in our heads, primarily race-driven and -- this is perha…

Seems the same to me idk

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#87

Post by tablespoon »

Majromax wrote: post #81
vorpalhex wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't the only person making this mistake but don't assume Roman slavery was like American chattel slavery. Roman slavery was still slavery and still had abuses but it was not "slavery till death, for all your generations". Nor were slaves mere physical labor. Slaves often ran businesses, engaged in basically white collar work, and often times were skilled craftsmen who exceeded their masters skill.

> Nor were slaves mere physical labor. Some slaves were not mere physical labour. However, many famers and miners were still enslaved people, worked in far more brutal conditions without the hope of manumission.

> Some slaves were not mere physical labour. However, many famers and miners were still enslaved people, worked in far more brutal conditions without the hope of manumission.

Yes, exactly. For instance, slaves would be disfigured to prevent escape:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome:

> As most slaves in the Roman world could easily blend into the population if they escaped, it was normal for the masters to discourage slaves from running away by putting a tattoo reading "Stop me! I am a runaway!" or "tax paid" if the slaves were owned by the Roman state on the foreheads of their slaves.[65] For this reason, slaves usually wore headbands to cover up their disfiguring tattoos and at the Temple of Asclepius, the Greek god of healing, in Ephesus, archeologists have found thousands of tablets from escaped slaves asking Asclepius to make the tattoos on their foreheads disappear.[66]

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#88

Post by tdeck »

wins32767 wrote: post #27

"And just as a household needed slaves, so companies need staff. Permanent employees, like slaves, are far more desirable than outsourcing to outsiders. The Romans thought external contractors could never be relied on like members of the primary social group. They failed to turn up when instructed to, took liberties with their fees and, taking little pride in their work, carried out their tasks shoddily. With slaves,…

A lot of the employer's benefit to hiring external contractors stems from the ability to sidestep labor laws (e.g. benefits, minimum wage, overtime, etc...). In a society where you're just allowed to own slaves that calculus looks a bit different.

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#89

Post by tablespoon »

inglor_cz wrote: post #63
MisterTea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "With slaves, however, who were stakeholders in the system," "With slaves, however, who's stakes were forcibly held by others in the system," FTFY

Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. The prospect of manumission was a huge incentive for the slave to work harder and smarter. Some freedmen became very rich. The slaveowners could theoretically renege on their promise, but rarely did so, because they…

> Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens.

And that may not have been the perk it's sometimes made out to be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

> However, the master could arrange that slaves would only have enough money to buy their freedom when they were too old to work. They could then use the money to buy a new young slave while the old slave, unable to work, would be forced to rely on charity to stay alive.[62]

Re: Roman slaveowners were the first management theorists?

#90

Post by sandworm101 »

Slavery and "slaveowners" are such a loaded terms that it is almost impossible to have rational discussions about them. Many instantly equate "slave" to recent versions of slavery in US history. But the definitions used throughout history are remarkably varied. A Roman household slave was not the same as an African slave in a US cottonfield.

One very interesting line of thought is whether modern soldiers are enslaved. US caselaw has two exceptions for the 13th amendment: Prison labor and military service. Why are they not slaves? There is no logical reason beyond the courts says they aren't. The concept of forced labor by people who are not "free" remains a cornerstone of modern society. We are not as far away from the past as we sometimes like to think.

Post reply on HN