Bureaucracy, Stalin's USSR, and the Managerial Revolution - Suggestion for a new Interest Group.

[Skales]

I. The problem:​

Since Paradox first revealed the Interest Groups system to the republic. Many have reasoned, suggested or speculated that there's a glaringly obvious missing piece in this system - A dedicated Interest Group for the state bureaucracy. This seems quite reasonable at first glance. The idea of a bureaucracy running amok from the control of its formal overlords, whether a hapless elected government or a figurehead monarch, is quite old. Famously immortalized in the Legendary British sitcom "Yes. Minister," among others.

In addition, it has been hotly debated on the forums and the Discord server that some late-game governments would benefit from this IG's inclusion. Such as Stalin's Russia, where the Unions and the Intelligentsia, two "obvious" IGs to form the government of this country, were respectively ruthlessly suppressed and explicitly targeted in systematic purges. This leaves us only with the Armed forces as the leading force. While there's much to be said about their role, Stalinist Russia was not a pure military dictatorship. Even the most casual observer will see a network of bureaucrats, apparatchiks and commissars. A power-bloc, exercising authority, but not synonymous with any of the groups mentioned above. That is not even discussing the massive transformation that occurred in the US and the UK, among others.

Various developers and commentators have countered that besides the most superficial institutional rivalries and jockeying for position, there can't be said to be a unified "bureaucratic" IG. A bureaucracy staffed by Aristocrats, priests or intellectuals differ in their goals and platforms. Nobody's loyal to some abstract idea of "the bureaucracy." Some clerk in the ministry of finance doesn't have any real inherent *interest* (Important, since we are talking about *interest* groups) in seeing the Ministry of Interior expand.

It is, therefore, clear we mustn't think of this problem as an issue of institutions. But as an issue of classes and ideas. Or, to put it another way, it is not a matter of the bureaucracy itself but what sort of people (Supporters of which IG) are running it.

The early 20th century is a period of massive social, political and economic change and upheaval. And while some of the processes will not culminate until beyond the game's time period. (Some would even say that they are not still not done today). They are vital to do the last third of the game justice. James Burnham was a thinker who was very concerned with explaining the changes that occurred during and immediately before his own time. Writing in 1941, his book "The Managerial Revolution" could shed some light on this and fits incredibly well with the game's mechanics and interpretation of history.

II. The Managerial Revolution:​

Owing to his Marxist origins, Burnham sees the root of the "Managerial revolution" in new economic developments. This is fortunate for us, as this is also how the game understands social change. The economic development behind the Managerial revolution is termed "The revolution of Mass and Scale."

Burnham's successor, Samuel T. Francis, provides us with a good characterization of the Revolution of Mass and Scale, so forgive me for quoting him at length:

"In the last half of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th, Western Europe and North America experienced a profound and unique transformation in the dominant structures of their common civilization. This transformation, comparable in its implications to those of the Neolithic transition from subsistence hunting to agricultural production, is not yet complete and probably will not end soon. Its essential characteristic consists in the vast and dramatic enlargement of mass and scale in almost all areas of organized human activity, the growth of mass populations, concentrated in huge urban conglomerations, working in large factories and offices, producing, consuming, governing, voting, communicating, and fighting on scales and in numbers that are unique in history."

This profound economic transformation necessarily brought with it entirely new forms of organization. The limited state of the previous centuries was replaced by the Mass Bureaucratic state. The entrepreneurial firm was replaced by the Mass corporation. And the petty squabbles of individualistic local politicians were replaced by large, organized machines of the Mass political parties and movements. Francis helpfully adds the all too familiar concept of the Mass media. It is this transformation in Mass and Scale that characterises late game powers such as the USSR, the Third Reich and to a lesser extent new-deal era USA. (A little digression here, if you would forgive me. But Burnham’s infamously inaccurate predictions regarding the end of the war and the superpowers that would rise in its wake is what inspired Orwell to write 1984 and to a lesser extent Animal Farm, which is an interesting little tidbit I rarely see mentioned.)

III. Who are the managers?​

Having, hopefully, explained the economic and social revolution that has occurred. Let's tackle the question of who are these managers benefiting (And seeking to accelerate or bring about) from this process. And do they deserve to be their own interest group in the game?

Let's first answer the question of who. Here's Burnham:

"... and those who carry out this type of function are they whom I call the "managers." Many different names are given them. We may often recognize them as "production managers," operating executives, superintendents, administrative engineers, supervisory technicians; or, in government (for they are to be found in governmental enterprise just as in private enterprise) as administrators, commissioners, bureau heads, and so on. I mean by managers, in short, those who already for the most part in contemporary society are actually managing, on its technical side, the actual process of production, no matter what the legal and financial form-individual, corporate, governmental-of the process.

There are, to be sure, gradations among the managers. Under the chief operating executives of a corporation like General Motors or U. S. Steel or a state enterprise like the TV A there are dozens and hundreds of lesser managers, a whole hierarchy of them. In its broader sense the class of managers includes them all; within the class there are the lesser and the greater."

And here's Francis:

"Technicality, technocratic, complexity, professionalization, specialization, skill, training, knowledge —these terms characterize the description of the central and controlling groups of modern corporate enterprise in the writings of the most prominent scholars and theorists of the modern corporation ... All of them emphasize the importance of technical functions, whether in production or in business executive operations, rather than legal authority, personal wealth, individual talent, or family relationships, in establishing control of the modern corporation, and although the terms they use to apply to these functions vary, the term “manager” is a useful one.

Management, therefore, may be defined in reference to the modern corporation as the body of technical skills necessary for the operation and direction of the mass corporation, which is itself characterized by the dramatically large size and scale of its assets, plant, labor force, research, production, distribution, and marketing functions, and the large size and scale of which functions typically involve a high degree of complexity, technicality, and specialization. Management, in a broad sense, thus includes not only the managers in the narrow sense of those who perform executive functions but also the technicians—scientists, researchers, engineers, economists, lawyers, and social scientists—who perform the specialized functions necessary to mass production and distribution."

Hopefully, that was not too much to take in from a mere forum post about a yet-to-be-released videogame.

The next question I heard you ask is: Is this anything new? Haven't companies and corporations always required 'Management' and organization? It is true, but previously a factory could be managed by a single person, a close associate or a relative of the owner, or perhaps the owner himself, with a couple of clerks. (Similar things can be said about most pre-modern governments, which would be very small in scale compared to modern ones, even the Chinese dynasties were nothing compared to even the modern-day nation of Luxembourg in terms of the sheer scale of their administrative state). The Mass Managerial corporation/state will have layers and layers of specialists and organizers with highly specialized knowledge ensuring the effective running of the operation. The "Managerial IG," with very few possible exceptions, should, much like the Trade Unions (And Industrialists in many 'less developed' nations), be born during the game, the last third of the game to be exact.

IV. How do Managers differ from bureaucrats?​

I believe it would be beneficial to review how the Manager IG would differ from a hypothetical "Bureaucratic IG." And why the former should be included in the game and the latter should not.

Firstly, the Bureaucracy IG would represent only the very narrow set of pure government employees and thus are only really a political and government phenomenon. While the Managers have their preferred modes and production methods in both the Public and Private sectors, thus tying directly with the game's economic mechanics, like every other IG. While the Bureaucratic IG is only relevant to the growth of the civil service. The increasing power of the Managerial IG is also related to Mass political parties, Mass Media, Mass corporations Great international organizations and alliances, etc. (Though the last mentioned likely won't be in the game at launch, thus I have taken the liberty not to talk about it.)

Secondly, the Bureaucratic IG would always staff the state apparatus and thus be a part of the government by default. This brings us back to the first part of this post, where we realized that it is not bureaucracy on its own that matters, but who is staffing it. If Landowners are in charge, the bureaucracy is staffed by aristocrats or their stooges. (Tempered by whichever bureaucracy law you have enacted at that moment). A Managerial IG helpfully avoids this problem. The type of extensive, specialized bureaucracy, divided into many bureaus, committees, sub bureaus and subcommittees is specifically a bureaucracy controlled by the Managerial IG. (A very self-serving and self-perpetuating bureaucracy we see arise in states like the USSR is a very corrupt variant, I'm sure many would agree.)

V. Can the Managers be an Interest Group?​

While so far, I think I have explained the economic conditions that brought about the birth of the Managers as a class. And I elaborated upon who composes this class of people. I realize that I have not yet proven that these people have shared political and economic consciousness and ideologies, which characterize other IGs in the game. It could be entirely the case that the Managerial revolution is only a technological condition. The USSR was not a state with Managers in the government but a Managerial state controlled by the Intelligentsia, the Military, or whoever else. The US is a Managerial state ruled by Industrialists, and the Managers only reflect the ideologies of their masters.

I believe there are 3 conditions that the Managers would have to fulfil to qualify as an IG in the game:
1) The Managers have to be a distinct part of society who actively benefit (Posses *interest*) from the Managerial revolution and its consequences.
2) The Managers manifest consciousness of those interests through shared beliefs, thought patterns, and ideologies, which make them want to extend or bring about more Managerialism. (Akin to the Rural Folk wanting to enact more Agrarianism).
3) The Managers are not already represented by other IGs present in the game.

Let's tackle these in order.

1) Managerial interest​

- We've already gone over the Managers as a group, but what about their interests? Here's what Francis has to say:

These managerial interests consist principally in maintaining and extending the size, scope, and role of the mass organizations through which all managers acquire their power and also in the working out of the implications of this extension in the state, economy, and culture. These implications include the fusion or integration of the mass organizations; the homogenization of political, economic, cultural, and social differentiations and particularities and an accompanying centralization of functions and authority in the mass organizations; the extension of the application of managerial skills to economic, political, and social and cultural relationships and activities for the management of social change under the disciplines of mass organizations; the adoption of “meritocracy,” in the sense of proficiency in managerial and technical skills, rather than status or prescribed characteristics such as race, sex, age, religion, class, or moral conformity as a criterion of upward mobility; and protracted opposition to the power, institutions, and ideology of the bourgeois elite as the main antagonist of and constraint upon managerial dominance. These common interests of the managerial elite are carried out in the public policies and legislation of the managerial state, in the economic activities of the managerial corporations, and in the ideology articulated in a variety of forms by the managerial intelligentsia in the mass organizations of culture and communication.

All this should be self-explanatory. Much like Industrialists benefit from building more factories and passing Laissez-faire economic laws, the Managers desire the expansion of Mass Organizations and the passage of accompanying policies. Including the breaking dawn of barriers and constraints placed upon people by prescribed characteristics such as class, birthright, sex or religion. This is done because it grants the Managers access to power, wealth and status they would have been denied under previous power structures. (In addition to ideological reasons which exist in a symbiotic relationship with their material demands, as we will discuss below.)

2) Managerial ideology​

- Let’s begin with Francis once more:

—“a ‘class’ exists when there is a community and continuity of institutional interest and an ideology that provides symbols of recognition (or codes of behavior) for its members”—the managerial elite does constitute at least a rudimentary social class, since its members share common interests, behave similarly in regard to them, and identify, rationalize, and communicate their interests by means of a common ideology. It is true that managers are often distracted from the pursuit of their group interests and that they often disagree on how they should be pursued—characteristics they share with almost all elites—and it is also true that their ideology is not a highly formalized or rigorous set of beliefs. It is probable that the persistent and restraining power of the bourgeois forces and ideologies and their influence on and penetration of some elements of the managerial elite itself have served to retard the development of the managers as a class. It is also probable, however, that the continuing decline of the bourgeoisie and its power and its inability to reverse the course of the managerial regime will eventually remove this constraint on the managers. If so, they will then develop a more explicit and overt class consciousness and identity, which will be expressed in a more sophisticated and formalized managerial ideology.

And Burnham:

The general basis of the managerial ideologies is clear enough from an understanding of the general character of managerial society. In place of capitalist concepts, there are concepts suited to the structure of managerial society and the rule of the managers. In place of the "individual," the stress turns to the "state," the people, the folk, the race. In place of gold, labor and work. In place of private enterprise, "socialism" or "collectivism." In place of "freedom" and "free initiative," planning. Less talk about "rights" and "natural rights" ; more about "duties" and "order" and "discipline." Less about "opportunity" and more about "jobs." In addition, in these early decades of managerial society, more of the positive elements that were once part of capitalist ideology in its rising youth, but have left it in old age: destiny, the future, sacrifice, power .... Of course, some of the words of the capitalist ideologies are taken over: such words as "freedom" are found in many ideologies since they are popular and, as we have seen, can be interpreted in any manner whatever.
…
Starting from such concepts as these, many dialectical and "philosophical" variations are possible, just as there were many variant developments of the capitalist concepts. There will be no the managerial ideology any more than there was a the capitalist ideology. The several managerial ideologies will, however, revolve around a common axis, as the capitalist ideologies revolved around a common and different axis. Cultural background, local history, religion, the path taken by the revolution, the ingenuity of individual propagandists will permit a considerable diversity in the new ideologies, just as they have in those of past societies.

As with every other IG in the game, the Managers can adopt quite a wide array of ideologies. (This diversity can be observed in the three chief examples of Managerial states.) But there are a few shared characteristics. First is the desire to apply Scientific methods to resolve social, economic and political issues. Whether this what we would consider "actual science". Marxist dialectical materialism. Or the fetishization of industry and technology by the Fascists exemplified through the Futurist movement. (The “Technocracy movement” active in the US in the 1930s is a very obvious example of a Managerial ideological movement, this one hasn’t quite caught on, perhaps due to its inability to appeal to the masses). There is always an imperative to apply the language of scientific objectivity to Managerial ideologies. The second commonality is the aforementioned destruction of barriers of birth, class, nationality, religion etc. Beneficial to the Managerial class, whose power comes from Merit, knowledge of the perception of Knowledge (Credentialism) rather than birth or property (Whether that be land or capital), because the Managerial class tends to see these barriers as fundamentally unjust and holding society back (A trait they often share with the intelligentsia).

3) Differences from other IGs​

Out of all the IGs, the Managers would share the most similarity with the Petit bourgeoisie and the Intelligentsia. This is quite understandable. All three groups are composed of what is sometimes called "middle-income skill groups" or "the middle class." Doctors, Lawyers, Professors, Engineers, Bureaucrats, economists, shopkeepers, scientists etc. We can rightly suspect that in the game, pops of this sort would give most of their support to these 3 IGs in varying proportions. (Academics would lean heavily to the Intelligentsia, Shopkeepers for the Petite Bourgeois,
Petite Bourgeois, others more equally divided. You know the deal).

Let's start with the Petit Bourgeois. It appears that now, many bureaucrats support the Petit Bourgeois. This does not sit well with me. The Petit Bourgeois are distinguished chiefly by their economic and social independent autonomy or desire for it. Either as small-time professionals such as lawyers, doctors, or, of course, shopkeepers. The desire to protect their way of life makes them distrustful of the new and the foreign, both for cultural and economic reasons. They see themselves as upholders of traditional morality. Whether the Bourgeois morality in the west (Their derisive nickname originates from their seeming need to imitate the Grande Bourgeois) or like their counterpart Bazaari class in countries like Iran, as bulwarks of Islam. The Petit Bourgeois, in short, are to Industrialists what the Rural Folk are to the Landowners. (Indeed, many would put independent peasants in the Petite Bourgeois category.)

In many ways, the traditional guild (or something akin to it, perhaps less formal) is their preferred mode of organization. In a recent thread about IG names, a Turkish user suggested the name "Asnaf" for the Petit Bourgeois. In Iran, this word refers to Guild members, which tells us we might well be on the right track.

Their economic dispute with the Managers should be apparent. The Petit Bourgeois fear and distrust the mass organizations of the Managerial state. (Does not mean they won't ever work with or for them, and they certainly wouldn't mind the mass state cracking down on all these pesky foreigners, infidels and socialists. But how much middle management does a small shop or a guild truly need?). Their cultural differences wary more. In some countries, the Managerial IG might share PB's cultural attitudes, or it might not. Of course, in Vicky 3, it's often up to the IG's leader.

Lastly, let us see what Francis has to say on the relationship between the Managerial revolution and the Petit Bourgeois:

Moreover, the political movements that act as the vanguards of the managerial revolution in both the hard and soft regimes tend to attract a considerable following from the lower strata of the bourgeoisie. The Progressive movement in the United States gained the support of small businessmen and farmers who sought to reform the corruptions of the bourgeois order. National Socialism in Germany also attracted the political allegiance of the petty bourgeoisie, which sought the stabilization of its own status and the reform and restoration of the German nation and Reich. Whether by design or force of circumstance, however, the political orders that came into being with the support of this popular and essentially bourgeois base quickly evolved regimes that developed managerial structures with interests and dynamics in conflict with those of the bourgeoisie and radically different from what the supportive petty bourgeois elements had envisioned or desired.

The Intelligentsia consists mainly of people focused on mental and intellectual pursuits, such as Scholars, Academics, Writers and Artists. Where the Managers are more hands-on and technical, focused on "getting things done," the Intelligentsia are more Idealistic. The Intelligentsia tend to be more innovative and creative, whereby the creative output of Managers tends to become bland, stale and repetitive cough cough why am I coughing this is cough so unprofessional cough. The Intelligentsia idealism means that they often end up very attached to Liberal ideas of speech, press etc. While the Managers usually have no issue staffing a repressive police state apparatus. Though once again, there's much variation within both groups.

The Intelligentsia, however, tends to agree with the Managers' application of scientific methods to solve social and economic issues. And their "meritocratic" ideals. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, as the Intelligentsia heavily benefits from this), and their challenging of traditional social norms and customs.

...
What can we learn from this? I hope to have convinced you that the Managers are sufficiently distinct from the other "Middle class" IGs. Broadly, it appears the Managers agree with the Intelligentsia on economic policy and their egalitarianism/meritocracy. But disagree with some of the Manager's more "totalitarian" and censorious tendencies. While the Petit Bourgeois disagree with their economic policies. Agree with meritocracy, but only in so far as it raises their own status and does not challenge the prevailing social order. But some of the specifics would differ from country to country and from IG leader to IG leader. In the Anglosphere, the Managers have historically formed a strong alliance with the Intelligentsia, while in Italy and Germany, they seem to have found more accommodation with the Petit Bourgeois.

Lastly, it is important to remember that while we stereotype certain pop types as one IG (Bureaucrats as Managers, Academics as Intelligentsia, Shopkeepers and Petit Bourgeois). Pops in-game will support multiple IGs, and thus most "Middle class" pop types would split most of their support between our 3 discussed IGs. I would certainly expect some Academics to support the Managers or the Petit Bourgeois, Bureaucrats who support the Intelligentsia, or even shopkeepers who support the Managers, even pro-Managerial aristocrats or capitalists should be rare but possible.

Lastly, here's a small chart highlighting the main differences between the three IGs.

VI. Implementation in the game.​

So, how can any of this be represented in the game? Please do bear in mind that the game isn't out yet, and I don't know all the possible laws and policies available, so I will be slightly hand-wavey in this regard.

A Managerial IG would be born at some point in the late game. Perhaps after researching a "Managerialism" tech? (Again, please be patient here, I don't believe we have seen the entire tech tree yet.)

The Revolution of Mass and Scale can be represented quite well with existing mechanics and technologies. Joint-stock buildings would start employing bureaucrats in addition to capitalists after they reach a certain level. (Or researching the Managerialism technology, if it is to be added).

They support the most professional versions of all institutions. So laws such as appointed bureaucrats and professional military (Unless there's a managerial version of these laws. For the civil service, you can think of the difference between the US under the spoils systems and the US after the Pendleton act. A managerial civil service would be an independent institution which mostly manages its internal affairs and is supposed to be impartial. For the army, think political commissars). They despise hereditary bureaucrats and oppose elected ones. Economically, their most preferred law is usually command economy. But they do not mind Laissez-faire as long as they still run it.

Politically, the Managers would usually be alright with Autocracy, Oligarchy, or full suffrage. (Mass political parties are beneficial. On this note, in a one-party totalitarian state, the "Managerial IG" get the ominous name "The party"). They oppose monarchy.

VII. Conclusion​

And here we are, at the end of our journey. It is a great honour to have kept you captivated for so long. Even if you disagree with some or all of what I wrote. I enjoyed writing this. It allowed me to clear up my own thoughts on the topic.

I hope I didn't overdo it with author quotes. It was not my intention to try appealing to authority or anything like that. But we all owe our intellectual debts to somebody, and I thought it fair to mention mine. Though I admit, it was comforting to remind myself that I am not just some rando forum poster who made all this stuff up. I ended up quoting more of Francis than Burnham, perhaps because I like his style better. But he had several decades of hindsight, so he could summarise Burnham's original insights and add his own in ways I never could. Of course, I do not believe Paradox should follow Burnham's and Francis' pet theories to the letter. Much like they do not follow Marx's or Adam Smith's, the game's systems are based on a synthesis of various ideas. And I believe these thinkers had some insights to contribute.

The game is nearing its release. So adding a whole new Interest Group seems impossible (not to mention unwise). And I have no illusions about this. So this thread is more intended as a vision, possibly to be picked up by some crafty modder, or maybe Paradox themselves (Perhaps in a late-game-themed DLC?) Even if most of the ideas won't make it in their original form (Such is the nature of such things). And, of course, to spark lively discussion as these forums are want to do. Speaking of which, what do you think?

 

[Duarte]

generely while i'm not opposed in principle to the adition of new IG's, heck I even believe that different governments should have different IG's, absolute monarchies should be dealing with high and low nobility, much the same totalitarin regimes should be dealing with beurocrats and technocrats, but that's besides the point here, I think your suggestion, while definatly solid, like many that have been made showcase an issue with the IG design, namely that it tends towards the static, IG's are only impacted by the changes in one country by how happy or not it makes them, being in a communist state specially for a while has impacts on the IG's themselves at a structural level, e.i beyond just their leader having a specific ideiology,

a good example of this, in yuo post even, is the inteligista, much of what yuo say to afirm that it's towards the liberal, meritocratic, democratic etc, can just has easily be used to justify it being the exact opposite of that, idealism has been the bedrock of many a regime, more than a few authoritarian, heck many an inteleactual in the past have supported censorship etc.

another thing to note in many of these suggestions, not insinuating yuors is one of them, people seem to think the composition of IG's to map one to one to the pops, the devs have stated multiple times this is not the case, sure somepop types have a strong afinity to specific IG's but the IG's themselves have an attraction rating, that near as i can tell, just attracts more random pops to a specific IG, to me it does not sem implasible that situation like the Soviet Union be represented by having say a massive military IG that is absolutely packed with bureaucrats or the like, the fact that these potentially wild IG compositions have so far been shown to not have an impact in the IG's themselves is just puzzling.

 

[TalTal]

interest groups are not professions, but they can include them, of course. Interest groups are an abstraction of the part of the population that is in favor of certain laws in your country.

 

[Skales]

generely while i'm not opposed in principle to the adition of new IG's, heck I even believe that different governments should have different IG's, absolute monarchies should be dealing with high and low nobility, much the same totalitarin regimes should be dealing with beurocrats and technocrats, but that's besides the point here, I think your suggestion, while definatly solid, like many that have been made showcase an issue with the IG design, namely that it tends towards the static, IG's are only impacted by the changes in one country by how happy or not it makes them, being in a communist state specially for a while has impacts on the IG's themselves at a structural level, e.i beyond just their leader having a specific ideiology,

a good example of this, in yuo post even, is the inteligista, much of what yuo say to afirm that it's towards the liberal, meritocratic, democratic etc, can just has easily be used to justify it being the exact opposite of that, idealism has been the bedrock of many a regime, more than a few authoritarian, heck many an inteleactual in the past have supported censorship etc.

another thing to note in many of these suggestions, not insinuating yuors is one of them, people seem to think the composition of IG's to map one to one to the pops, the devs have stated multiple times this is not the case, sure somepop types have a strong afinity to specific IG's but the IG's themselves have an attraction rating, that near as i can tell, just attracts more random pops to a specific IG, to me it does not sem implasible that situation like the Soviet Union be represented by having say a massive military IG that is absolutely packed with bureaucrats or the like, the fact that these potentially wild IG compositions have so far been shown to not have an impact in the IG's themselves is just puzzling.

I would argue that the best way to look at IGs is to look at them in reverse. People often look at the name of a particular IG, say, the Intelligentsia and ask themselves "Mhm, yes, this group is called the Intelligentsia, now which policies should a group named the Intelligentsia support?"

Looking at it from the reverse you ask "Mhm, here's a set of policies, what should we name the group of people advocating these policies? Let's call them the Intelligentsia." I don't know if this is how Paradox designed the IG system, but looking at it this way makes more sense to me. Under this point of view, who are the Intelligentsia? Well, they are the supporters of the Intelligentsia IG set of policies, that's it. Now, as it turns out the abstract set of policies bundled together in this IG tends to be supported largely by intellectuals, so that's how they get their name. There are of course intellectuals who do not support that particular set of policies, but they are not a part of the Intelligentsia IG, but supporters of other IGs. As you point out you can't map pop types 1 to 1 on it. This exact mistake is why I wrote the following section:

Lastly, it is important to remember that while we stereotype certain pop types as one IG (Bureaucrats as Managers, Academics as Intelligentsia, Shopkeepers and Petit Bourgeois). Pops in-game will support multiple IGs, and thus most "Middle class" pop types would split most of their support between our 3 discussed IGs. I would certainly expect some Academics to support the Managers or the Petit Bourgeois, Bureaucrats who support the Intelligentsia, or even shopkeepers who support the Managers, even pro-Managerial aristocrats or capitalists should be rare but possible.

But all this is just a thought I had the other day and not necessarily related to the overall point of this thread.

interest groups are not professions, but they can include them, of course. Interest groups are an abstraction of the part of the population that is in favor of certain laws in your country.

Ok

Edit: To be clear, I agree with what you said. I just don't understand who or what you are replying to.

 

[TempestM]

interest groups are not professions, but they can include them, of course. Interest groups are an abstraction of the part of the population that is in favor of certain laws in your country.

So what IG would be in charge of Stalin's USSR?

 

[TalTal]

Communist Party of the Soviet Union, of course)

 

[TempestM]

Communist Party of the Soviet Union, of course)

That's not an IG in the game

 

[Delterius]

this felt pertinent i don't know why

 

[Skales]

this felt pertinent i don't know why

M A N I P U L A T I O N
O F
P R O C E D U R A L
O U T C O M E S

 

[Skales]

That's not an IG in the game

Indeed it is not. I am actually not sure what @TalTal meant with his original comment. Though as I suggested it's plausible that in one-party states the Managerial IG could be called "The party" perhaps localised as "Apparatchiks" in Russia. Though this is separate from the actual political party mechanic in the game since those do not exist in non-democracies.

 

[Tomray94]

I think your suggestion, while definatly solid, like many that have been made showcase an issue with the IG design, namely that it tends towards the static, IG's are only impacted by the changes in one country by how happy or not it makes them, being in a communist state specially for a while has impacts on the IG's themselves at a structural level, e.i beyond just their leader having a specific ideiology,

While I understand why you'd feel the need to stress that the IGs are not static and should not be treated so, and I agree with that, still there are policies which the IGs want that hint towards some ideological position by default (for example, to please the rural folk, you'd need to implement agrarianism to a larger or lesser extent, with the intelligentsia you need to implement certain liberal reforms, even if limited ones).

This is what I think the OP was getting at, to please the managers there are things you'd need to do, even if they aren't fully static (nor should they be).

 

[Duarte]

While I understand why you'd feel the need to stress that the IGs are not static and should not be treated so, and I agree with that, still there are policies which the IGs want that hint towards some ideological position by default (for example, to please the rural folk, you'd need to implement agrarianism to a larger or lesser extent, with the intelligentsia you need to implement certain liberal reforms, even if limited ones).

This is what I think the OP was getting at, to please the managers there are things you'd need to do, even if they aren't fully static (nor should they be).

oh I wholly recognise that, it's just if the IG's where more dynamic, it would make stuff more clear, rather then the trend towards hair spliting of "what constitutes the essence of insert *IG name here*" that some many of this suggestions fall into, if the inteligista under comunism just became more beurocratic or the like to mind at least it would be easier for all to understand

 

[Skales]

oh I wholly recognise that, it's just if the IG's where more dynamic, it would make stuff more clear, rather then the trend towards hair spliting of "what constitutes the essence of insert *IG name here*" that some many of this suggestions fall into, if the inteligista under comunism just became more beurocratic or the like to mind at least it would be easier for all to understand

While I understand why you'd feel the need to stress that the IGs are not static and should not be treated so, and I agree with that, still there are policies which the IGs want that hint towards some ideological position by default (for example, to please the rural folk, you'd need to implement agrarianism to a larger or lesser extent, with the intelligentsia you need to implement certain liberal reforms, even if limited ones).

This is what I think the OP was getting at, to please the managers there are things you'd need to do, even if they aren't fully static (nor should they be).

The issue here seems to be that Duarte may be confusing institutions and/or classes of people with Interest Groups. Under his mode of thought, if we stacked the officer core of the armed forces with Aristocrats, the Armed forces IG would become an exact copy of the Landowner IG. I and Tomray both seem to think this would be redundant (not to mention it would make every regime in-game near unassailable). All this would mean is that the Landowner IG is very strong and the Armed forces IG is very weak (This is actually how it is in many countries in 1836).

A fictional example that is not in-game, but could also be used to elaborate on this is as follows, imagine a military dictatorship which is sick of unionist opposition, so it replaces the entire union leadership with veterans and officers. Duarte would say that the Union IG would now become an exact copy of the Armed forces. But the way it works in-game is that Unions would become very weak, and the Armed forces comparatively very strong, which I think is much better.

I also believe that the IGs are actually influenced a bit by your form of government, I vaguely recall hearing that the Intelligentsia would be more likely to adopt leftist ideologies under a Socialist government, but don't quote me on it.

 

[Spartakus]

Interest Groups are not the correct way to model this, laws and charachters are.

We already have laws about how bureuracts com into office - appointed, elected and herditary I think. So an interest group that's also about this issue is pretty redundant. However, the idea of a self serving bureaucracy is an interesting one and I think this could be modeled quite well with an apparatschik charachter trait for polititians. Apparatschick are determined to preserving the status quo thet helped them come into power and when they become the leader of an interest group this one becomes rather happy about it but is more likely to stall any lawmaking process. The important thing is that this could apply to any and every interst group - representing corrupt union leaders, decadent aristocrats, inflexible generals etc.
Interest groups that have been in power for a long time and single party systems would become increasingly likely to spawn these type of charchters.

 

[Sarmatian]

this felt pertinent i don't know why

The first thought that came into my mind when I started reading the OP .

 

[Skales]

Interest Groups are not the correct way to model this, laws and charachters are.

We already have laws about how bureuracts com into office - appointed, elected and herditary I think. So an interest group that's also about this issue is pretty redundant. However, the idea of a self serving bureaucracy is an interesting one and I think this could be modeled quite well with an apparatschik charachter trait for polititians. Apparatschick are determined to preserving the status quo thet helped them come into power and when they become the leader of an interest group this one becomes rather happy about it but is more likely to stall any lawmaking process. The important thing is that this could apply to any and every interst group - representing corrupt union leaders, decadent aristocrats, inflexible generals etc.
Interest groups that have been in power for a long time and single party systems would become increasingly likely to spawn these type of charchters.

Sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but have you read the opening post? The whole point was to address this and explain why, no "Bureaucrats" don't make sense as an Interest Group, but "Managers" (Though I am not bound to that name in particular, it's just what Burnham and Francis use and I can't think of a better one right now. Apparatchiks would be a Russian-specific localisation if you are a one-party state), I even have a section on how they're different. I don't know how one could come to the conclusion that such an incredibly social, economic, and political change, spawning an entirely new class of people and spanning all of society and even beyond could be modelled by a single character trait.

The change you are proposing also seems incredibly redundant, considering Interest Groups that have been in power for a long time are most likely very satisfied with all the existing laws and wouldn't want change, so why would they need a special character trait that makes them even more opposed to change? Most starting countries have laws that favour aristocrats and aristocrats are quite happy with it, but they are quite unlikely to support any change, what point would a special "Decadent aristocrat" trait even have?

 

[Spartakus]

Sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but have you read the opening post? The whole point was to address this and explain why, no "Bureaucrats" don't make sense as an Interest Group, but "Managers" (Though I am not bound to that name in particular, it's just what Burnham and Francis use and I can't think of a better one right now. Apparatchiks would be a Russian-specific localisation if you are a one-party state), I even have a section on how they're different. I don't know how one could come to the conclusion that such an incredibly social, economic, and political change, spawning an entirely new class of people and spanning all of society and even beyond could be modelled by a single character trait.

The change you are proposing also seems incredibly redundant, considering Interest Groups that have been in power for a long time are most likely very satisfied with all the existing laws and wouldn't want change, so why would they need a special character trait that makes them even more opposed to change? Most starting countries have laws that favour aristocrats and aristocrats are quite happy with it, but they are quite unlikely to support any change, what point would a special "Decadent aristocrat" trait even have?

My apologies if I have skimmed a bit to fast over certain passages. But even after re-reading I remain unconvinced that the Manager-IG is fundamentally different from a Bureaucrat-IG in anything that it drains clout from the Industrialists. And that isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

[Skales]

My apologies if I have skimmed a bit to fast over certain passages. But even after re-reading I remain unconvinced that the Manager-IG is fundamentally different from a Bureaucrat-IG in anything that it drains clout from the Industrialists. And that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Mhm, that's fair. I think people might be missing the context of some of the arguments I made. I am responding to earlier discussions on these forums and the Victoria 3 Discord. Some, including the developers, have argued that Bureaucracy IG does not make sense. And they are fundamentally correct. A bureaucrat doesn't have a direct interest in seeing the bureaucracy become stronger as a whole, material or otherwise. And their concern would be focused solely on the bureaucracy law, which is way too limited and already covered by other IGs.

While bureaucracy is a permanent fixture of all advanced societies, the Managers are a (mostly) new class born in the late 19th century. And their focus is much broader than just the bureaucracy law. They have a social, political and economic platform, distinct from other groups. This is what I tried to illustrate in my post. Sadly, it appears I have failed to convince you.

You aptly point out something interesting, the Managerial IG would be a competitor for the Industrialists. This is undisputably correct, and also for the Trade Unions and other "Late Game IGs." I think there is nothing wrong with this, as the Managerial IG will 1) Only appear late in the game and 2) Only appear in already highly industrialized societies. It fits nicely into the game flow, where solving a problem produces new problems and opportunities. You want a more powerful country. So you start industrializing, birthing an Industrialist IG and a Trade Union IG you now have to deal with. You deal with the Industrialists and Trade Unions, and now suddenly there's this new Managerial IG you either have to deal with or work with. Indeed, the thesis of the Managerial Revolution is that the Managers grew inside the "industrialist (in game terms) order" and replaced it.

The other day, I saw someone argue that there should be more of a late-game threat to your Socialist and Capitalist utopias. I think the Managers fit this role.

 

[Spartakus]

Mhm, that's fair. I think people might be missing the context of some of the arguments I made. I am responding to earlier discussions on these forums and the Victoria 3 Discord. Some, including the developers, have argued that Bureaucracy IG does not make sense. And they are fundamentally correct. A bureaucrat doesn't have a direct interest in seeing the bureaucracy become stronger as a whole, material or otherwise. And their concern would be focused solely on the bureaucracy law, which is way too limited and already covered by other IGs.

While bureaucracy is a permanent fixture of all advanced societies, the Managers are a (mostly) new class born in the late 19th century. And their focus is much broader than just the bureaucracy law. They have a social, political and economic platform, distinct from other groups. This is what I tried to illustrate in my post. Sadly, it appears I have failed to convince you.

You aptly point out something interesting, the Managerial IG would be a competitor for the Industrialists. This is undisputably correct, and also for the Trade Unions and other "Late Game IGs." I think there is nothing wrong with this, as the Managerial IG will 1) Only appear late in the game and 2) Only appear in already highly industrialized societies. It fits nicely into the game flow, where solving a problem produces new problems and opportunities. You want a more powerful country. So you start industrializing, birthing an Industrialist IG and a Trade Union IG you now have to deal with. You deal with the Industrialists and Trade Unions, and now suddenly there's this new Managerial IG you either have to deal with or work with. Indeed, the thesis of the Managerial Revolution is that the Managers grew inside the "industrialist (in game terms) order" and replaced it.

The other day, I saw someone argue that there should be more of a late-game threat to your Socialist and Capitalist utopias. I think the Managers fit this role.

Alright, then what about the charchter trait I proposed? We have seen in the Brazil AAR how much of a difference an Abolitionist politician as head of the devout IG made for abolishing slavery. It was on the fast track there and when he died, Brazil needed to put the Intelligentia into the government and it was a much slower process.

If we take this example we could have "managerial" charchters who in the late game would frequently appear especially in the industrialists and trade unions. These charachters would then push for a more egalitarian law set in regards to culture and religion but if I read you correctly would not necessarily advocate a democracy. They would just as well live in a stalinist autocracy.

 

[1775guy]

Indeed it is not. I am actually not sure what @TalTal meant with his original comment. Though as I suggested it's plausible that in one-party states the Managerial IG could be called "The party" perhaps localised as "Apparatchiks" in Russia. Though this is separate from the actual political party mechanic in the game since those do not exist in non-democracies.

USSR was a democracy. Just like Germany under the you know whos. Its just that the approved list of candidates was all from one party. America and Britain are only twice as much democracy, with only 2 parties that matter (I can't comment on continental democracies, as I know less about those systems).

All governments with a pretense of popular sovereignty should have parties, because as many academics have pointed out (e.g. in the dictators handbook), there is a sliding scale from 'Democracy' to 'Dictatorship.' Rather than just say some government are dictatorships and some are 'Democracies', represent the actual differences between the regimes. And, of course, there is no such thing as a government whereby 'the people' make all the decisions, unless we are talking about some small hunter-gathering tribes. I don't think anyone is under the pretense that politicians act in the best interests of their constituents, or channel 'the people's will' all or most of the time in western democracies (see single digit congressional approval rating).

[this sounds harsh on Skales, who is just the messenger. It is not intended that way. I am aware Skales has no influence on what the developers do]

EDIT: it should be noted that national socialist Germany actually did allow at least one other party I know of (I believe they were called the vanguard party or something), who were of course in agreement with the vast majority of what the Nazi party wanted were not 'diametrically opposed' in the way that actually competing parties are (such as the republicans and democrats in America). The analogous situation would be a state whereby the only legal parties were the Republicans of America and the libertarian party.