Breaking down the question

The question has two clear limbs. The first asks for the distinctive features of the organisation of work in a slave society; the second asks how these differ from those of a feudal society. Both must be answered, and the second is essentially comparative, so the answer should culminate in sharp contrasts rather than two separate descriptions.

The organising idea is that each is a historical mode of production with its own way of controlling labour and extracting surplus. The worker is unfree in both, but the form and degree of that unfreedom differ, and that difference is the heart of the answer.

Threads to develop:

  • Slave labour as property: total ownership of the worker, direct coercion, no rights.
  • Feudal labour as serfdom: bondage to land, customary obligations, partial autonomy.
  • The precise axes of contrast — ownership, surplus extraction, incentive, rights.

How to approach it

Begin by framing both as pre-capitalist modes of production in which labour is unfree and surplus is extracted by non-economic compulsion, so the comparison has a common yardstick. Situate the answer in the sociology of the social organisation of work.

Then set out the features of slave society — the slave as a chattel wholly owned, driven by direct force, without family or property rights. Follow with feudal society — the serf bound to the manor, owing rent in labour, kind or cash, yet possessing land use, family and customary protection.

Close with a compact point-by-point contrast so the "how is it different" limb is answered explicitly.

Model answer

Slave society and feudal society are both pre-capitalist modes of production in which the direct producer is unfree and the surplus is extracted not through the market but through direct, extra-economic compulsion. Yet the way work is socially organised differs markedly between them, above all in the form and degree of the worker's bondage.

The distinctive feature of work in a slave society is that the labourer is owned outright as property. The slave is a chattel — bought, sold, inherited and disposed of like a tool or an animal — and in law is a thing rather than a person. This total ownership shapes every aspect of the organisation of work. Labour is extracted by direct physical coercion: the slave works under the whip and the threat of punishment, not for a wage or out of obligation. The slave owns nothing — neither the means of production, nor the product, nor property of his own — and the master appropriates the entire product, returning only enough subsistence to keep the slave alive and able to work. The slave typically has no recognised rights, no secure family life and no legal personality; often production is concentrated in large gangs, as on the latifundia of the ancient world, working the master's estate under supervision. Because the slave has no stake in the outcome, the system relies on force rather than incentive, and productivity and the care of tools tend to be low.

Work in a feudal society is organised through serfdom, a milder and customary form of unfreedom. The serf is not owned as a person but is bound to the land — tied to the manor and transferred with it if the estate changes hands. In return for the right to cultivate a holding for his own subsistence, the serf owes obligations to the lord: labour services on the lord's demesne (corvée), and rent paid in kind or later in money. Crucially, the serf retains possession of a plot, tools and livestock, lives in his own household with a family, and enjoys customary rights that limit the lord's demands — obligations are fixed by tradition rather than being unlimited. Production is decentralised across peasant holdings within the manor rather than concentrated in gangs, and because the serf works part of the time for himself, he has some incentive to produce, which tends to make feudal agriculture more productive than slave labour. The relation is bound together by mutual, if grossly unequal, obligation and by the ideology of custom and religion.

The two therefore differ along several clear axes. In ownership, the slave is owned as a person while the serf is bound only to the land. In rights, the slave has none while the serf holds customary rights, a household and a plot. In surplus extraction, the master takes the slave's entire product, whereas the lord takes only a defined portion of the serf's labour or produce, the rest remaining with the serf. In the mode of compulsion, slavery rests on direct physical force, feudalism on customary obligation reinforced by law and religion. In incentive and organisation, slave labour is coerced, supervised and gang-based with little motivation, while serf labour is partly self-directed on family holdings and carries some inducement to work. In short, both are systems of unfree labour and surplus extraction by compulsion, but slavery organises work around the total ownership of the worker, whereas feudalism organises it around the bondage of the worker to the land under reciprocal customary obligation.

Examiner's perspective

Examiners expect both limbs to be answered, with the comparison made explicit rather than left implicit. A frequent weakness is to describe slavery and feudalism in turn and never state the contrasts; the second half of the question is best served by a short set of clearly named axes — ownership, rights, surplus, compulsion, incentive.

Precision distinguishes strong scripts: the slave as chattel owned as a person versus the serf bound to the land with customary rights and a holding of his own. Placing both within the framework of pre-capitalist modes of production and unfree labour shows conceptual grasp, and noting the higher productivity of serf labour, because the serf has a stake, signals analytical depth within the ten-mark limit.