Full employment.
Food provided.
Clothing provided.
Medical care provided.
Housing provided.
Little or no pay, but who needed it?
The person said "Isn't that Communism?"
I said, "Close, it is slavery."
I then outlined the benefits for the owner in providing adequate nutrition, clothing, housing, and medical care in order to safeguard their investment and, of course, full employment meant a ROI.
While that was not intended to be a defense of the institution of slavery (i have no desire to own anyone nor be owned by anyone), my intent was to pull aside the veil of 170 years of abolitionist hyperbole (Uncle Tom's Cabin was a novel) and get the person to think.
I suppose, if one looked hard enough, you could find those who bought agricultural implements (tractors, harvesters, etc.) and immediately set out to damage and destroy them, but those would be in the minority. When the owner's prosperity depends on the ability of the field hands, it makes no sense to treat them like crap. Doing so in an employer-employee relationship doesn't work well either, even now.
Even in our crony capitalistic society are we really free? I propose a test, can you quit your job and move anywhere and not loss everything in a few years, if not you are truly free, otherwise you are at best an endured servant or at worse a slave. Modern western society is structured so that only if you build a nest egg of money, that you can live off of only the interest, can you even get close to becoming a free man. And this is the best system there is.