It seems to me that slavery was prevalent throughout Roman history. Is this so, and when did this begin? And more importantly, why was the institution of slavery so important to the functioning of the Roman economy -- why, for instance, did they not simply utilize wage labor instead, or corvee labor, or what have you? Didn't this institution have drawbacks?
And secondly, When Marx writes about different modes of production, between the primitive and feudal he tends to describe a mode known as "slave society" or sometimes "asiatic". For any who might be acquainted with his analysis, does it hold water? Does ancient Rome and its institutions of chattel-slavery actually represent a distinct "mode of production"? (Edit ~ And to clarify, what exactly is unique about this slave-society as a mode of production that renders it distinct from slave-ownership under Capitalism, such as in the American South?)
When I studied economic history we were taught a very cynical "equation" which described where/when/why slavery existed. Basically it's The ratio between; Land, Labour and Capital.
If i remember correctly the proportion were; Cheap Land, expensive labour and expensive (or little) capital. This also holds true for the american colonies. (think about the american south; big lands, but few people to work there)
If labour is abundant and you can pay them there is no reason to take slaves. Slavery is actually quite expensive, contrary to popular belief. You have to have guards, take slaves by force. Give the slaves food and shelter. And the slaves tended to die at a higher rate than free labour. If labour is abundant you can pay workers a wage that is lower than the cost of taking och holding slaves. All you have to pay is the bare minimum, on the verge of starvation (sometimes even less)
edit (extra): The roman empire had a huge state, army (and other expenses) The only way to pay these expenses was to utilize the army and expand. Their "income" from the expansion were mainly slaves and reparations of war (basically blackmail, pay us or we'll come back). interesting fact; when the empire were so large they couldn't go on any more expansion-campaigns. Their income from slaves and rapartions halted and the roman empire crumbled under it's own economical weight. (of course this is a little bit of simplification).
Secondly. Yes Slavery or "asiatic" as you say, is a mode of production. Ancient Greece were apparently early to institutionalize systematic use of slavery and make it effective. Rome learned a lot from Greece.
Slavery as a separate mode of production is totally acceptet by historians, at least in the field of economic history
My sources are only swedish textbooks, so I doubt it would be helpful for you, sorry.
Slavery in Ancient Rome was a very complicated affair. Yesterday I wrote a little on the confusion of the roles of slaves in the Roman Republic, and as such I am going to avoid the topic of whether paid labour was used or whether slave labour dominated and focus instead on one of the key roles the slave classed played in the development of the Roman world.
The usage of slaves was commonplace in the ancient world with many different societies having their own systems. One thing that really stands out with Roman slavery is the role manumission played within society. In ancient Athens, for example, a slave could be freed by it's master and therefore be no longer a slave but became what was known as a "metic". This class was that of a non citizen alien, all metics must have a sponsor and did not become citizens of the polis (1). This meant that social mobility was extremely difficult and integration of outsiders was extremely limited. The Roman's on the other hand created a class known as the "freedman", when a slave was manumitted they became a freedman (2). This gave the ex-slave the rights of a freeborn citizen, such as voting, but they were still banned from public office or priesthoods. The key fact of these "libertini" was that their children were born free and as full citizens. This meant that the children of ex slaves were full Roman citizens with the right to enter office.
The rate of manumission in Rome is a hotly debated topic with studies in epigraphical evidence showing an inordinately high rate of manumission (however the subset of those slaves with grave inscriptions is not your typical group of slaves) but what seems to stand out is the ability for slaves to become regular citizens. This seems to be key in a society which expanded so rapidly and many believe that this is one of the key reasons for stability in the Empire. The slave classes are much less likely to rebel if they know that there is a high chance they will be free and that their heirs could become active members of society. Some people take this slightly further and argue that due to the supposed high rate of manumission (high enough that Augustus had to pass a law limiting the number or manumissions in 6CE) (3), slavery can almost be seen as a step towards integrating outsiders into the society of Rome (4).
Sources
2)S. Treggiari "Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic" 1969
4)T. Wiedemann "The Regularity of Manumission at Rome" 1985
Additional Reading
I love this book so I thought I'd add it at the bottom, I even bought a new copy just because I don't have it here in Canada with me. It is over 200 ancient texts translated with everything from legislation, tombstones and legal judgements to do with slavery in Greece and Rome. It is a trove of amazing first hand information and is a MUST for anyone who is studying ancient slavery
T. Wiedermann "Greek and Roman Slavery (Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World)" 1989
David Graber "debt; the first 5,000 years", goes into the economic and social underpinnings of roman slave system pretty well. Since anyone could become a slave if they owed somebody enough, or even was captured by slavers and couldn't ransom, it was used as the motor to keep the "moral hazard" incentive to keep working.
So ingrained into their culture, even their language and customs such as handshakes and verbal courtesies gave cues to owner/slave status (a legacy we carry on to this day).
As to origins Graber argues that compounded daily interest is the cause of it all. A combination of math and violence makes usury possible, and the Romans carried that out to its logical conclusion: slavery.