Reform: Slavery/Serfdom

[unmerged(131989)]

Will these be able to be their own reform types, or will they have to be modelled via decisions as they were modelled via events in Vicky 1? Personally I think it would be better to be a reform type, though certain circumstances should allow you to enact/remove the status, with subsequent effects included too.

 

[JimmyCos]

the slavery was abolished in all the western world in the 19th century and early 20th century, so it's obvious that you can only remove

 

[Orinsul]

Slavery almost came back in the 20s under the name of the liberal eugenics, political policies that would restrict the poor from making any decisions about their life, marriages, employment, everything controlled by the state, by the depression for vast numbers of people where they lived and work was controlled by chartered charitable organisations. They abolished serfdom and so invented homelessness and then they rounded up the homeless and gave them the choice of jail or the workhouse and if you ran away from the workhouse the police would collect you and drag you back and you could never leave unless you had the money to buy yourself out of it. How is that not slavery?
Indeed the Liberal option which would have happened had the first world war not was worse than slavery as it was based on the 'scientific' principles that poverty and criminality could be eliminated by stopping the poor from breeding, that the poor were a separate race rather than an economic class. Both Centre parties in britain supported it and in america the theory continued to hold full support until well after the second world war.
Theres no reason Slavery wouldnt come back, you can just be sure it wouldnt come back under the same name.

And secondly Serfdom was nothing akin to slavery as the serf had rights and the master responsibilities and severe penalties should be fail to fulfil them. However by the C19th the upper-classes had gained to much wealth off the death of it to ever allow it to return and no serf alive could remember it, not even the remainents as it was gone long before his fathers generation so Serfdom is not a plausible policy for Victoria II, no less than the colonisation of mars would be.


That said certainly in the uncivilised world Slavery could be abolished and then return as slavery with a new governments. Or potential anywhere should the situation be bad enough, except for england of course.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Slavery almost came back in the 20s under the name of the liberal eugenics, political policies that would restrict the poor from making any decisions about their life, marriages, employment, everything controlled by the state, by the depression for vast numbers of people where they lived and work was controlled by chartered charitable organisations. They abolished serfdom and so invented homelessness and then they rounded up the homeless and gave them the choice of jail or the workhouse and if you ran away from the workhouse the police would collect you and drag you back and you could never leave unless you had the money to buy yourself out of it. How is that not slavery?
Indeed the Liberal option which would have happened had the first world war not was worse than slavery as it was based on the 'scientific' principles that poverty and criminality could be eliminated by stopping the poor from breeding, that the poor were a separate race rather than an economic class. Both Centre parties in britain supported it and in america the theory continued to hold full support until well after the second world war.
Theres no reason Slavery wouldnt come back, you can just be sure it wouldnt come back under the same name.

And secondly Serfdom was nothing akin to slavery as the serf had rights and the master responsibilities and severe penalties should be fail to fulfil them. However by the C19th the upper-classes had gained to much wealth off the death of it to ever allow it to return and no serf alive could remember it, not even the remainents as it was gone long before his fathers generation so Serfdom is not a plausible policy for Victoria II, no less than the colonisation of mars would be.


That said certainly in the uncivilised world Slavery could be abolished and then return as slavery with a new governments. Or potential anywhere should the situation be bad enough, except for england of course.

Thats a pretty drastic interpretation of the social reform ideas of the 1920s. Slavery should most definitely not come back unless you want to make a Nazi mod.

Serfdom was pretty well modeled in VIP by having the serf population in Russian provinces be its own culture ("Krepostnoy") and in non-Russian provinces part of the generic local non-national culture (Ukrainian, Belorussian) which would be converted to Russian or added as national culture if you chose that way in the reform events. It was possible to play an ultra reactionary Russia which by 1914 still had Krepostnoy around and Ukrainians/Belorussians as non-national minorities. Tough as hell but possible. Some guy even made an AAR about it...

 

[Orinsul]

not the reforms but the politics that drove them. But a damn lot of the reforms too, its universality acknowledged now that to force people into indentured work that they can never on their own wages pay of that debt and then to give them no option to leave due to the debts is slavery. Its pretty much the definition of slavery, but they believed that they were doing the right thing.

Alot of the world had slavery, If the Ottomans become the worlds leading and most influencal Great Power, say even a super-power, would not the wheel turn back to slavery? especially if its rivals were slavery countries, say brazil, csa, russia and the mugals or some other beastly regieme. Why should slavery go away just because one part of europe says it should especially if the liberal revolutions were to turn into a turmoil or civil wars and utter chaos rendering europe into nothing as far as the world stage is concerned. If the 'free world' was to tear itself apart why should the golden river of liberal progress continue to flow the same way

 

[EGaffney]

Since fascist regimes used labour in slave-like conditions, it makes sense that they would not be ideologically opposed to slavery in their colonies.

 

[Saulot]

Thats a pretty drastic interpretation of the social reform ideas of the 1920s. Slavery should most definitely not come back unless you want to make a Nazi mod.

Serfdom was pretty well modeled in VIP by having the serf population in Russian provinces be its own culture ("Krepostnoy") and in non-Russian provinces part of the generic local non-national culture (Ukrainian, Belorussian) which would be converted to Russian or added as national culture if you chose that way in the reform events. It was possible to play an ultra reactionary Russia which by 1914 still had Krepostnoy around and Ukrainians/Belorussians as non-national minorities. Tough as hell but possible. Some guy even made an AAR about it...

Do you have a link to the AAR? I would love to read it.

 

[Orinsul]

fascist? What about the Democratic regimes that did it?
It should be in the game as an economic option, especially for the uncivilised world but for the civilised as well. But dont get silly revisionist, no-one to-day would do that so my political affiliation wouldnt have back then either. On the whole its not an extremist posistion is slavery, not for the most of the world.
Yes its unquestionably evil and an evil thing to do but still most of the world did it and would still be doing it but for the fact that its easier not to.

 

[OHgamer]

A quick study of the labor practices used in African colonies by even the most democratic Western nations in the period from 1890 to 1930 would reveal conditions that are little more than slavery by another name. The French in particular suffered several scandals in their African colonies after being censured by the International Labour Organization for forced labor requirements to build infrastructure, railways in particular.

As far as serfdom goes, while the VIP system worked well, it really was not the best solution - I think better would be to have a scale of land ownership systems that would give various production bonuses and maluses based on the system you have in place - serfdom, free tenancy, sharecropping, and even slavery could be put into that system.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

As far as serfdom goes, while the VIP system worked well, it really was not the best solution - I think better would be to have a scale of land ownership systems that would give various production bonuses and maluses based on the system you have in place - serfdom, free tenancy, sharecropping, and even slavery could be put into that system.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was thinking. The bonuses could be there for authoritarian regimes in particular - keeping the masses uneducated and down. However, emancipating the serfs could provide educational bonuses, for example. There could be all sorts of efficiency bonuses, consciousness/militancy increases/decreases, etc... too.

 

[curtis]

As far as serfdom goes, while the VIP system worked well, it really was not the best solution - I think better would be to have a scale of land ownership systems that would give various production bonuses and maluses based on the system you have in place - serfdom, free tenancy, sharecropping, and even slavery could be put into that system.

How would this be modeled in countries like the US where free tenancy and sharecropping existed? Also for the example of France where they practiced different policies in colonial holdings?

I'd be understanding if such historical points were glossed over for the sake of playability.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

How would this be modeled in countries like the US where free tenancy and sharecropping existed? Also for the example of France where they practiced different policies in colonial holdings?

I'd be understanding if such historical points were glossed over for the sake of playability.

Actually, pretty much every country in the period you can think of had huge regional variations in landholding practices, so it really couldn't be something you set on a "national" level - particularly when you get to big states like the USA and the Russian Empire.

For it to even be semi-accurate this would need to be zoned down to the provincial level, which would be completely unmanageable (unless it was some sort of building type).

 

[Arilou]

A quick study of the labor practices used in African colonies by even the most democratic Western nations in the period from 1890 to 1930 would reveal conditions that are little more than slavery by another name. The French in particular suffered several scandals in their African colonies after being censured by the International Labour Organization for forced labor requirements to build infrastructure, railways in particular.

As far as serfdom goes, while the VIP system worked well, it really was not the best solution - I think better would be to have a scale of land ownership systems that would give various production bonuses and maluses based on the system you have in place - serfdom, free tenancy, sharecropping, and even slavery could be put into that system.

For all the issues associated with forced labour , corvee is not slavery. (in fact in Thailand slavery was abolished specifically to make more people eliglible for corvee)

 

[unmerged(48056)]

I agree that a separate condition should be applied to territorial POPs. How come a Hottentot tribesmen in the British Empire has the same list of consumptions as an Englishman Craftsmen in Yorkshire? :rofl:

And secondly Serfdom was nothing akin to slavery

Not if you had a horrible Lord. And you make it seem that serfdom was a good thing with a benevolent gent. How is that different than slavery? Some slaves in the rural south were well clothed, fed and educated; sometimes moreso than their "free" white counterparts, who often had to send their kids to pick cotton just to afford food.

 

[unmerged(48056)]

Since fascist regimes used labour in slave-like conditions, it makes sense that they would not be ideologically opposed to slavery in their colonies.

To be fair all regimes in history have used "labour in slave-like conditions". In fact the worst abusers of forced labour have traditionally been Stalinist and Maoist regimes

 

[EGaffney]

To be fair all regimes in history have used "labour in slave-like conditions". In fact the worst abusers of forced labour have traditionally been Stalinist and Maoist regimes

I think you are correct. I just thought about fascism because our colleague's signature reminded me of it.

 

[Orinsul]

Not if you had a horrible Lord. And you make it seem that serfdom was a good thing with a benevolent gent. How is that different than slavery? Some slaves in the rural south were well clothed, fed and educated; sometimes moreso than their "free" white counterparts, who often had to send their kids to pick cotton just to afford food.

Serfdom is a contract between the Serf and Lord in which the Serf is the controller, should there be a bad lord then the Serf appeals to either the lord's lord, i.e. the King, the Church or in certain cases the guilds who would in turn take legal action against the lord. Its not about benevolence, but about rights, if a slave is mistreated he cannot call the law on his owner, he has no rights. Whereas the Serf had just as much if not more rights than we do to-day. Atleast in England anyway, the word means something quite different in the dark of the east.



Anyway to the discussion about the game, Why not have it at State Level OR have it at national level but two options, In States and in Terrortories so that the Colonies could have it one way and the home another, or possibly a box to tick in the State window that changes it from being on law list A to law list B and so two policies might be pursued at once.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

Serfdom and slavery were ultimately set at a national level. Of course there are exceptions for various federal systems, in which state governments would need to be represented, but I think a general national reform should be allowed. That is, slavery is legal in the USA, though that is not to say that every state has slaves in it.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Slavery existed in Africa and Arabia well into the 1900s. I would suggest it should be very hard to implement reforms in non- civilized provinces.

 

[Orinsul]

It has to be two values, slavery is illegal in most of europe, but not in the colonies, Slavery has been illegal in England since the 1100s but it was legal in some of the colonies, so there must be a difference in setting the law for Empires, the American example is in this like it is in most things, the exception not the rule.