Note 141 — Chapter IV · AGRICULTURAL TRIBES.

Secondly. The argument that leads us to conclude that slavery, is inconsistent with a state of society in which all land is held as property, equally applies to serfdom. For the serf, as well as the slave, was compelled to work. There is a great difference between slaves and serfs on one side, and modern labourers and tenants on the other. The labourer has to work for his employer, and the tenant has to pay rent; but both can always declare the contract off and so put an end to their obligations. And even as long as the contract lasts, if they do not discharge their duties, they can only be condemned to pay damages; but the labourer cannot be compelled to work, nor the tenant to remain on the farm. The slaves and serfs of early times, however, were under personal compulsion. The slave was the property of his master, whom he was not allowed to leave. And the serf, as we so often read, was “bound to the soil,” “astricted to the estate”, “an die Scholle gefesselt”, which means that he was forbidden to remove from the spot assigned to him. Professor Cunningham states that in England, in the 11th century “a very large proportion of the population were serfs who could not move to other estates or to towns”141, and Amira tells us that in Germany, in the Middle Ages, the villeins (Grundhörigen) were not allowed to remove from the land which they cultivated142. Therefore our argument holds with regard to serfdom as well as slavery. For when all land has been appropriated, a landlord can always find free tenants who are willing to pay him a rent, and free labourers who are willing to work for him, and so he wants neither serfs nor slaves. We may quote here Oppenheimer’s remark that, as soon as all land has been appropriated, “serfdom in the proper sense, implying the astriction of the labourer to the soil, has become superfluous. The labourer can safely be allowed personal freedom, and it is allowed him. The produce of his labour can now be taken from him, in the form of rent, though he may be personally free. For he is excluded from the means of production, as far as they could be accessible to him, and so he has to accept the terms of the proprietor or to starve”143.