A slight comment to your point on the feudal system. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom is not exactly slavery in a narrow sense, but the serfs aren't free to move from the land and are required to work for the feudal lord without other payment than a small piece of land to farm. A variety got reintroduced in some countries due to peasants moving to large towns, in Denmark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavnsb%C3%A5nd (sorry in danish) from 1733 with the main parts recinded in 1788 onwards and the final remnants removed in 1848.

@Bent: yes, I was thinking more of the post-Black death serfdom which was much more free. Thanks for your comment, I clarified myself.

Are serfs not slaves? I wonder on what comfortable legalistic fine-line can we draw the line between either form of dependencies. To learn history, instead of from Mr Molyneux, I would recommend Ch. 1 of The Cambridge World History of Slavery - Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804 -- DEPENDENCE, SERVILITY, AND COERCED LABOR IN TIME AND SPACE. The title is telling, and it is 21 pages worth of good reading to start or attempt to understand the institution of slavery.

@JAsia: no, serfs are no slaves. Most serfs could not be sold without their family and land (except in Russia). Their condition was a far cry from the current ideals of liberty, but way better than that of outright slavery.

Um... a statement like “there was no slavery in an agricultural society X” is definitely not akin to “there exists a flat (as opposed to spherical) planet Y”, which is not just unlikely but, for all we know, physically impossible. Also, that's an existential statement, not one about any particular subject, which makes quite a difference for questions of whose burden the proof is. If anything, the statement is akin to “exoplanet Y which we just discovered – a gas planet – has no significant magnetic field”.

@sds - You seem quite certain. I am less certain - of the difference between a serf and a slave, in practise. Nothing wrong with your point of view, I think it requires more consideration, the choices available to a serf if they are dependent on their overlord.

sds, I believe that in Russia it is more appropriate to say that serfs were the property of the land, and the land was the property of whatever noble. The nobles would gamble and use hundreds of acres as their bets - the serfs would come with the land and didn't even need to be mentioned in the bet. Much like, when you buy a car, the seats come with it. And in a practical sense, serfs were little different from slaves. They had moderately more rights than most slaves historically, but the practical effect of this and the ability to exercise those rights were very limited.

@user3685427: correct; and sometimes the serfs were sold individually - even splitting the families. As far as I know, this was not practiced in Western Europe.

@JAsia While there were cases of restricted move, peasants were most of the time free to move and settle new lands. Lack of salary is not sign of slavery in a society where money has much less role than now. They were essentially in a rental contract where payed with their labor for a piece of land to use. They couldn't be sold, had no strict control over daily life, marriage, etc, and had considerable better legal protection than people without any land

@user3685427 If you buy a company (or buy shares), the workers are not automatically fired, but assumed to come together. were their serf markets? Could be be killed by owner? Were they breeding stock, sex slaves in harems or castrated? Just because they had no universal dental plan or because their financial were terrible it doesn't make them slaves. Most people had been rather restricted lifestyle choices and terrible financial situation in those ages, let's not overuse the term slave.

@Greg If you reverse your question it becomes: if you buy a company, the workers are not automatically your property. Yes, in most cases serfs could be killed by the owner, because the owner was the only judge over them. They were not sex slaves, but they could not marry (thus have sex) without owner's permission. But the most important part is that unlike your factory workers could not quit the factory and move to another one. They were slaves in most aspects of modern understanding of the word. Greek "slaves" could pursue freedom, they were "less slaves" than serfs in that regard.

@Greg Not calling serfs "slaves" is merely how we make ourselves feel better about our own history.

@sds Re "no, serfs are no slaves": Serfdom as well as slavery came in many variations, in other words: Are poorly defined. There surely is a basic commonality from a modern point of view: Both were property; not free to make important decisions about their own life; usually lacked enforceable legal protection. The respective details pale in comparison. And even considering the particular expressions of both conditions through time and space I assume there was a big factual overlap between certain historical instances of slavery and serfdom.

There were plenty of "agricultural societies" without slavery, or where slavery played a minor role. Indeed, many more than societies that actually relied on slavery as a fundamental pillar of their "economies". To cite a few, Mediaeval Europe, Japan, China, Tibet, Hawaii, Ancient Egipt, Persia, Mexico, Peru.

I think this answer simplifies Europe to the point of being incorrect. The situation in England or France was considerably different to that in central Europe, never mind Eastern Europe. Especially if we consider that there's overlap between the medieval era and the Viking age; in which slavery was practiced. And slavery in Russia was legal until 1723. Not to mention how serfs, especially unfree serfs, were basically slaves. Your comment on the Black Death I think is not applicable to the continent as a whole, and had positive effects for only about a century?

@inappropriateCode: please take the answer in the context of the question - it asks about Atlantic slave trade. Also, the Russian "household slaves" that were converted to serfs in 1723 were insignificant economically. Please also see edits, I tried to clarify things. Thanks for your comments.

@LuísHenrique: all early agricultural societies practice slavery in some form. most gradually progress to feudalism and then capitalism.

Actually, you cannot prove a negative, so the burden of proof lies with the one who claims that all agricultural societies have had slavery (i.e. you).

@Agent_L Incorrect: buying a company doesn't automatically null the contract of the workers, they come with the company. Whatever you cal serfs mostly had the right freely marry whoever they want. There might be exceptions, but the norm was that. The can be killed argument is reflecting your inability to distinguish de facto and de juve: following your arguments, all actresses are properties and sex slaves to producers and presidents, and drug lords has the right to sell drug. Just because someone could get away with it using power, it doesn't mean it was legal.

@PeterA.Schneider Lacking enforceable legal protection is not necessarily a good argument, as EFFICIENT, ENFORCABLE legal protection rarely existed in pre-modern societies on one hand, and on the other hand SOME FORM of legal protection existed for serf and similar.

"serfs owned property and worked at least some time... for themselves"--These were also true of enslaved African (and African-American) people in the US. Not the norm on the plantation, where the opportunities to do so would've been few anyway, but in urban areas many enslaved persons might be given the right to work "overtime" by practicing a trade to earn money, usually toward purchasing freedom. The distinction between types of bondage are less clear-cut, more of a continuum.

My understanding of serfdom was more like serfs belonged to the land and not the other way around. I vaguely recall learning that there was major tension between nobles as burgers because peasants would leave the land and be taken in by the burgers much like abolitionists in the US would protect runaway slaves.

From my understanding, indigenous slavery in Africa was much closer to serfdom in Europe than it was to the vastly crueler and more severe institution in the Americas. Assuming my understanding is accurate, it should be highlighted in your answer. It's misleading to suggest that American-style slavery was simply imported from Africa or the Middle East.

@JohnHamilton It is absolutely possible to prove a negative, it is just much harder(in general,especially in infinite problems, but definitely not always), but definitely not impossible. Especially when making legal arguments., which I think sds was doing here. Has there been a legal murder in country X after (year an applicable law has passed) than the answer is clearly no.

@Tiercelet the difference is that the serf worked for themselves on a land they got in exchange for their work for the local feudal lord. Slaves worked for their owner because they were owned, not because they got anything in exchange for that.

@ChrisSunami if you suggest that castration or breeding of serfs was a common practice all over Europe i have to dissapoint you

@Greg You keep evading the main point of factory argument: workers can quit their contracts, serfs could not. That's what makes them slaves. In "slaver" Greece, abusing the slaves was illegal and any citizen could start litigation against slave's owner. Both idealized image of our medieval ancestors and the "Caligola" Hollywood image of killing-slaves-for-fun Antiquity (throw in mandingo fighting, too) are false. In some aspects serfs were better of, in others ancient aspects slaves were. But they both were "not free to walk out the door", which is how we define slavery in XIX century.

@Agent_L Well, then kings and queens are definitely slaves... You guys use the term "serf" for everyone who has a land contract in a feudal system, not recognizing the fact that more often than not they were free to move or could move under certain circumstances (e.g only in given dates). Also where the movement was not free, it mean they could not just move the whole household, yet members of the family (eg offspring) could freely move to other places - unlike slaves. Considering that in many feudal countries you cannot sell land (not even the landlord), your view is rather anachronistic.

@Agent_L "But they both were "not free to walk out the door", which is how we define slavery in XIX century". So by this argument, Russian serfs were not slaves up until XVI century, because they once a year could do just that - walk out on their landlord?

Yes, even in Eastern Europe the common legal norm was that peasant families could move and resettle somewhere else if they wanted, ie they were not permanently tied to the land. It was generally allowed seasonally or other regular periods for practical reasons. Of course, depending on shortage of workforce, esp after the middle ages these right were often abused in practice, generally leading uprises. However the large movement of peasants during middle ages as well as the large number of landless workers proves that in practice free movement was common