So, about Authoritarian Empires.... (based on info from stream)

[Radically Right Wing]

I ask you to tell me the difference between Victorian-era Factory workers and slaves. Or how it's wasn't a Caste system.

And standing military is still a necessity if your size are bug, while your population is low.

And on unrelated note, could someone tell me which part of my post people disagree with? I'm asking not to fuel the argument, but just to know that part people are so against for.

Well I disagree with you that an Indian style caste system ever existed in a Victorian Era Western Nation (except maybe Russia) but I do think that slavery is still viable in modern times or the future simply because having an unpaid workforce is always a positive to any employer.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Well I disagree with you that an Indian style caste system ever existed in a Victorian Era Western Nation (except maybe Russia) but I do think that slavery is still viable in modern times or the future simply because having an unpaid workforce is always a positive to any employer.

Chattel slavery was fine maybe in Roman times, sure. The very idea of "profitability" didn't exist until the 15th century or so after all.

Modern economic and social structures preclude slavery being viable, mostly due to the transition to knowledge economies.

That said, in a society where human labour is mostly menial and constitutes a majority of labour in the economy, slavery can make economic sense. In a society where the majority of human labour is devoted to idea creation, where machines perform menial tasks, and where humans are left to use their creativity instead of their hands to work; it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It would be actively damaging to the society that makes use of it. That is so obvious that even the Soviet Union grasped it and paid their engineers and other knowledge workers with vacations to Crimean beaches and summer homes/dachas in the taiga instead of trips to the gulag and armed guards per capita.

Economics is full of counter-intuitive conclusions though. "Slavery isn't cheap" is one of them. Like almost all things in economics, it is situational. The conditions that make slavery profitable generally precludes long-term economic expansion and growth, as the most developed economies generally seem to have been able to get away with outlawing slavery outright without substantial issues for their long-term health (if any). It appears that capital provision and financing are far superior methods of ensuring long-term growth and rapid development.

Not sure why this wouldn't change in the future either.

In game terms, slavery is probably represented fine as long as there's a goodly risk of slave revolt, which was the true fear of all slave civilizations from Sparta to Mississippi. If slave revolts are too small or too easily crushed, then you might need to add a minor negative modifier to empire-wide research or something. Make slavery a temporary tool for increasing mineral output (mostly) but at the cost of something else. Whether the something else is the risk of your planets rebelling or your research falling behind is probably academic as long as one or the other (or another) is enough of a negative to not make permanent slavery the optimal solution.

Although chattel slavery was Pareto optimal, so if your ideal societal goal is to resemble a mathematical concept you can dive in feet first I guess. That would be pretty heavy :flavor: too.

 

[Ixal]

Dont forget that even today some of the minerals required for high tech items come from 3rd world countries where they are basically mined by slaves.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Dont forget that even today some of the minerals required for high tech items come from 3rd world countries where they are basically mined by slaves.

Don't forget sweat shops that assemble electronics/clothes/knickknacks, prison labour that breaks rocks and builds roads and stamps licence plates, etc...

I also maintain that the sort of wages that force people below the poverty line to work multiple full-time service jobs can be easily considered a form of slavery.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Dont forget that even today some of the minerals required for high tech items come from 3rd world countries where they are basically mined by slaves.

If this is a generic comment on sweatshops or something, then I'd say that going from a $0.45/hour wage in subsistence farming or a $0.25/hour wage in street begging to a $1.20/hour wage in T-shirt sewing is a grand improvement in quality of life and a positive direction to move in.

The truth is that sweatshops are generally positive for both employee and employer relative to the counter-factual. The problems appear when we realize that the countries that sweatshops live in are generally corrupt to the core and rarely does the state have the best interests of the people at its heart, but rather the best interests of the state at heart. Thus, the predatory state emerges.

The real fear is what is going to happen when all these countries that are getting loads of FDI start becoming as rich as the West is now and we've entered a global post-industrial economy. Better hope someone figures out a solution to the ills of late-stage capitalism and free trade before then, I guess. I suspect that the solution is going to be a return to protectionism which may benefit developed economies' lower class workers who will be shielded from international labour competition but harm literally everyone else.

Singer and Marx were both right, but right about different things.

Anyway this is diverging into a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Ixal]

If this is a generic comment on sweatshops or something.

I was not talking about vietnamese sweatshops but congonese mines in warlord territory.

 

[Drakonn]

you might need to add a minor negative modifier to empire-wide research or something

Not sure about that as there are already penalties to Unity gain, happiness, unrest, and the need to keep standing armies around. Yet another penalty and we'd need a *very* good reason to take slavery in the game. Granted, we've only seem Caste in action (which counts for slave armies and maybe other slave policies; not certain myself ) and it's early game yet.

 

[The Founder]

All about ownership, zero about ownership conditions. Or owned person mental or physical state. Or anything else. Only about ownership.

Hiring someone costs X per month.
Buying a slave costs Y ome time investment, but in turn only 0.5X per month.
All else being equal it is simply a mater of econoics.

Do you think the slave has the same standart of living for those 0.5x?
If that was the case, 0.5X would be enough for the hired worker and the slave would get less then 0.5X.
Otherwise paying to own the person makes no sense, if he costs the same per month in the end.

Yeah, I've got to throw my opinion into this that Industrial Revolution-era factory workers were definitely "slaves by another name". This has persisted all the way to the modern day- "company towns" that kept their workers in debt through monopoly over both resources and wages, sweat shops that do much the same... hell, the modern Western work climate requires many people below the poverty line to exhaust themselves working 2-3 simultaneous full-time jobs just to make enough money to survive.

Wage-slavery is still slavery.

It is a fucking INSULT without to compare having to work 2 jobs with actuall slavery. A real slave would love to have as much choice and freedom as the "wage slave".
You are either absuing the word slavery, not knowing what it actually means. Or are trying to devalue the suffering under real slavery. Neither one will get you any agreement from me.

Sweatshops are on the line to slavery. And actually proove my point: the work is simple. It is the kind of work, machines do in our country. Only reason it is done there? The slaves or workers there ar even cheaper then machines for us. The moment similar standarts of living appear, that changes. Like China IS loosing low paying jobs to Vietnam.

Not sure about that as there are already penalties to Unity gain, happiness, unrest, and the need to keep standing armies around. Yet another penalty and we'd need a *very* good reason to take slavery in the game. Granted, we've only seem Caste in action (which counts for slave armies and maybe other slave policies; not certain myself ) and it's early game yet.

Agreed. Asking for more negative modifiers, only means some is not aware of the already existing modifiers. To repeat:
Unity gain reduction/cost increase. Possibly per slave.
Slaves tending towards Individualism/possible Xenophobia. Wich will cause more faction issues. Especially if someone frees those slaves via warfare.
Diplomatic penalties
Higher faction activity

And do keep in mind that the thus far shown factions are only "political action commitees". The real rebel factions have not yet been revealed in a dev diary.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Not sure about that as there are already penalties to Unity gain, happiness, unrest, and the need to keep standing armies around. Yet another penalty and we'd need a *very* good reason to take slavery in the game. Granted, we've only seem Caste in action (which counts for slave armies and maybe other slave policies; not certain myself ) and it's early game yet.

I forgot about the Unity modifier, I think I assumed that was more of a size thing than a slave thing.

That might make slavery more of a debatable thing. Mineral production is kind of a wash for both egalitarian and authoritarian though, since by mid-game you're swimming in so many minerals that the bottleneck invariably turns into energy for the rest of the game. Minerals are the bottleneck early game, though, but they're ultimately not very valuable in the long-term.

A negative modifier for Unity growth might stymie an empire's growth enough early game to make the question of slavery or egalitarian citizenship worthwhile, but there probably isn't enough dynamicism to keep swapping between the two throughout the game. There will probably be a cutoff where, no matter what, egalitarian just steps on everything else because of EC production and mineral marginal utility tanking when you're racking up 7-800 minerals/month with no major modifiers. Food doesn't seem to be very useful either, by itself, except that you can spam more mineral buildings maybe.

At that point you're still going to be building min-max optimal ethics and gaming the game. So unless you really have a super strat that makes early game slavery king (unlikely?) then transitioning to egalitarianism to shrink the Energy Gap, it doesn't seem to be very useful outside of the more abstract meta-aspects like "fun".

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

It is a ****ing INSULT without to compare having to work 2 jobs with actuall slavery. A real slave would love to have as much choice and freedom as the "wage slave".
You are either absuing the word slavery, not knowing what it actually means. Or are trying to devalue the suffering under real slavery. Neither one will get you any agreement from me.

You're demonstrating a tragically small worldview.

There's no "choice" involved in living below the poverty line- it is an experience of constant stress that demonstrably alters your neurochemistry and results in psychological trauma. Working two or even three full-time jobs at the same time and driving yourself to constant exhaustion and physical illness just to be able to barely support your continued existence is absolutely on-par with slavery.

 

[Demarque]

Is there any downside in playing as a non-enslaving authoritarian? What if I want to roleplay as a benevolent autocracy?

 

[The Founder]

There's no "choice" involved in living below the poverty line- it is an experience of constant stress that demonstrably alters your neurochemistry and results in psychological trauma. Working two or even three full-time jobs at the same time and driving yourself to constant exhaustion and physical illness just to be able to barely support your continued existence is absolutely on-par with slavery.

Slavery is that. Plus no right to vote, marry, have a familiy and being beaten up when the lord has a bad day.
Whatever "wage slavery" is. Real slavery is worse.

 

[The Founder]

Is there any downside in playing as a non-enslaving authoritarian? What if I want to roleplay as a benevolent autocracy?

The upside would be more stable Ethos. The downside would be less minerals (both production and consumer goods). We have to see wich Tradtions affect wich Ethos to really know viable combinations.

 

[Drakonn]

I forgot about the Unity modifier, I think I assumed that was more of a size thing than a slave thing.

That might make slavery more of a debatable thing. Mineral production is kind of a wash for both egalitarian and authoritarian though, since by mid-game you're swimming in so many minerals that the bottleneck invariably turns into energy for the rest of the game. Minerals are the bottleneck early game, though, but they're ultimately not very valuable in the long-term.

A negative modifier for Unity growth might stymie an empire's growth enough early game to make the question of slavery or egalitarian citizenship worthwhile, but there probably isn't enough dynamicism to keep swapping between the two throughout the game. There will probably be a cutoff where, no matter what, egalitarian just steps on everything else because of EC production and mineral marginal utility tanking when you're racking up 7-800 minerals/month with no major modifiers. Food doesn't seem to be very useful either, by itself, except that you can spam more mineral buildings maybe.

At that point you're still going to be building min-max optimal ethics and gaming the game. So unless you really have a super strat that makes early game slavery king (unlikely?) when transitioning to egalitarianism, it doesn't seem to be very useful outside of the more abstract meta-aspects like "fun".

Don't forget they've added Consumer Goods as a mineral cost now. Slaves (depending on policy) get reduced CG. Caste is 25% reduction (I think) so I imagine the other forms are even higher while an Egalitarian system has only a 10% reduction non fanatic.

I've still not reached the point of mineral inflation yet in a game (only got into midgame recently). The one where I have though I'm still lucky to get +200 minerals a a month and when my cruisers alone cost 700 there is always a need for them. (Don't really min max planets and farms are still low tech)

 

[Kat Tsun]

Don't forget they've added Consumer Goods as a mineral cost now. Slaves (depending on policy) get reduced CG. Caste is 25% reduction (I think) so I imagine the other forms are even higher while an Egalitarian system has only a 10% reduction non fanatic.

I've still not reached the point of mineral inflation yet in a game (only got into midgame recently). The one where I have though I'm still lucky to get +200 minerals a a month and when my cruisers alone cost 700 there is always a need for them. (Don't really min max planets and farms are still low tech)

I didn't forget CG, I'm just not really counting it because everyone pays for that. I'd expect a fully min-maxed race/government would probably have a similar level of reduction to Caste society, plus the living standards reductions, with a commensurate increase in EC and ethos tolerance from egalitarianism and Thrifty.

My biggest point is that a single credit is generally more valuable than a single mineral, though. A 20-30% increase in mineral production isn't worth it over a 10% increase in credit production.

Ship maintenance slays credits, which are also tied to warship damage output, building production, and other things like research speed. Minerals tend to be a 2:1 or 3:1 gain over credits too in a generic "healthy" economy, the cap is usually three to five times larger in big empires because of the cumulative effect of silos, and there's no equivalent structure for hoarding energy. Sure, you use minerals for buying things like ships and stuff, but energy credits are what keep ships and buildings (and research) useful in the first place.

I guess my point is I'm not sure how you'd make slavery worthwhile over a EC producing race, either, since EC is so much more important in the mid- and late-game. You might take authoritarianism for an early boost to mineral production and a early expansion phase or war phase, but you'd lose in the long-term to Thrifty races that produce more credits because they'd be able to have bigger fleets than you.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Slavery is that. Plus no right to vote, marry, have a familiy and being beaten up when the lord has a bad day.
Whatever "wage slavery" is. Real slavery is worse.

None of that is in the definition of slavery. You are making an arbitrary distinction between different expressions of the same core concept- that is, the idea that someone can forcibly extract the labour of someone else by curtailing their freedoms. A corporate employer has just as much ability to threaten you for unwanted behaviours as a plantation owner- they just use different methods.

Wage-slavery is a modern expression of slavery- it turns out you don't need whips and chains to force somebody to work for you if you place them in a nigh-inescapable economic model (and the entire narrative of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is easily read as a variant on "buy your way out of slavery").

 

[Radically Right Wing]

Don't forget sweat shops that assemble electronics/clothes/knickknacks, prison labour that breaks rocks and builds roads and stamps licence plates, etc...

I also maintain that the sort of wages that force people below the poverty line to work multiple full-time service jobs can be easily considered a form of slavery.

I would not agree with the second part because they are reimbursed for their labor but the first part definitley describes how slavery could work in a futuristic Economy.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I would not agree with the second part because they are reimbursed for their labor but the first part definitley describes how slavery could work in a futuristic Economy.

The problem is that wage-slavery isn't a fair exchange- the employer holds all the power within that economic model.

Would you call a company town "fair" because the workers are being paid, even though the vast majority of their wages are funneled right back into their employer through exclusive and monolithic control over the local economy? Because modern wage-slavery is effectively that on a larger, more interconnected scale.

 

[Radically Right Wing]

The problem is that wage-slavery isn't a fair exchange- the employer holds all the power within that economic model.

Would you call a company town "fair" because the workers are being paid, even though the vast majority of their wages are funneled right back into their employer through exclusive and monolithic control over the local economy? Because modern wage-slavery is effectively that on a larger, more interconnected scale.

Well I would call it fair because they can simply leave the town and seek better work somewhere else, or if they are being paid very low wages it is likely that a new company will come in and take advantage of the generally low wages in the town and offer slightly higher wages to the workers so everyone would go and work for them instead.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Well I would call it fair because they can simply leave the town and seek better work somewhere else, or if they are being paid very low wages it is likely that a new company will come in and take advantage of the generally low wages in the town and offer slightly higher wages to the workers so everyone would go and work for them instead.

You really ought to look up the history of "company towns" and how exploitive they were. It very much wasn't as simple as "moving somewhere else" (with what money? All your wages go into staying alive and are potentially even taken directly out of your pay) or hoping another company offers something better.

It was an economic model designed to entrap and exploit people- something which, again, exists today on a much larger and interconnected scale.