Will the authority mechanic railroad players into playing despotism?

[EUnderhill]

Are you talking about per capita production or rough plantation-wide production? Because, as you said, it can be in the end far more productive in absolute because you have more people working a same patch of land for more time with longer shifts and a almost industrial organization of labour, but as someone who lives on a country where latifundia to this day dominates i can assure you that much productive capacity is wasted because neither the plantation owners nor the workers have much incentive to make complete use of their lands, since the slaves won't gain anything from it and the plantation owners don't need absolute efficiency. I'm sure the crack of the whipe can drive someone to work harder, but small-scale sabotage and lack of willingness to work where also constants of slave economies all throughout the world.
On the issue of taxation, you don't use it only to pay for infraestructure and education, you also need to pay the army and your bureaucracy, vital functions of any State since its inception, and most rulers in history wanted to expand their power, wich implies the expansion of these tools of state, wich implies more need for taxes. After all, the raising of taxes that led to american and french revolutions surely wasn't made to pay teachers or roadbuilding.

per capita...large plantations had an economy of scale (and whipping) that the early attempts at sharecropping could not replicate. Planters were a competitive lot and had every incentive to maximize their land so as to maximize display of wealth. If there was one regret the planters held over Black slavery, it was that they could not squeeze an equal amoint out of the poor white trash.
As for military expenses, there was a state militia, but that was not a large expense and state bureaucracy cost little as there was not a lot of formal administration and that which existed was part of a good-ole-boy network that paid for itself in bribes/kickbacks. Federal expenses came largely from tariffs, which largely fell on those wealthy enough for imported goods. Do remember that there was not a large standing army in USA at the time

 

[LoLuecoLueco]

per capita...large plantations had an economy of scale (and whipping) that the early attempts at sharecropping could not replicate. Planters were a competitive lot and had every incentive to maximize their land so as to maximize display of wealth. If there was one regret the planters held over Black slavery, it was that they could not squeeze an equal amoint out of the poor white trash.

I am aware it was a economy of scale and that it outcompeted individual farmers by far, it is very easy to conclude that latifundia will beat individual farmers by far everytime and that slavery is better than sharecropping for the latifundia owner because he gets to keep everything, but i'm not talking about sharecropping nor the ability of them to get people out of business, i'm talking of the efficiency per person and per land area. It was and still is a common practice for latifundia to buy land simply to not allow competitors to use it, as that way you keep your position in the markhet without need to investing more, and they don't need to be as efficient as possible to kick others out of their business, and they won't be as efficient as possible because as i said, slave sabotage and the costs of keeping slaves in line, at the end of the day they can be very efficient on their own but will never surpass what the combined force of free farmers could do as a whole.

As for military expenses, there was a state militia, but that was not a large expense and state bureaucracy cost little as there was not a lot of formal administration and that which existed was part of a good-ole-boy network that paid for itself in bribes/kickbacks. Federal expenses came largely from tariffs, which largely fell on those wealthy enough for imported goods. Do remember that there was not a large standing army in USA at the time

Well, if the US had no need for taxes, good for them, but other slave countries such as Brazil had need for army and infraestructure projects wich where carried out by the State, the US isn't the only playable country in the game after all and by far not the only one with problems reguarding slavery/serfdom. Other countries did need lots of money to fullfill their State expenses, money wich they could gain more easily by curtailing this tax evasion scheme of the nobility and many others.

 

[LoLuecoLueco]

Btw, even if countries OTL had no need at all for more taxes, it doesn't exclude the fact that slaves don't pay them and abolishing slavery is by definition more lucrative to the State, the point isn't that the U.S. needs more taxes at all.

 

[EUnderhill]

Btw, even if countries OTL had no need at all for more taxes, it doesn't exclude the fact that slaves don't pay them and abolishing slavery is by definition more lucrative to the State, the point isn't that the U.S. needs more taxes at all.

Slaves add to the profits of the planters, who now have more money to spend on foreign goods, on which tariffs will be paid. Slaves were only a drain on the hill-billies who were too poor to free their slaves, and for those (like the Lee family and others in Northern Virginia) who kept them for ornamental purposes. One can not understand the USA, and one models it at ones own peril, without understanding that Americans were a citizen of their state first and to the nation as a whole second prior to the ACW. Even after the war, while there was a growing national consciousness, until the New Deal, state governments, and not the federal government, played a larger role in the day to day affairs of the people.

 

[LoLuecoLueco]

Slaves add to the profits of the planters, who now have more money to spend on foreign goods, on which tariffs will be paid. Slaves were only a drain on the hill-billies who were too poor to free their slaves, and for those (like the Lee family and others in Northern Virginia) who kept them for ornamental purposes. One can not understand the USA, and one models it at ones own peril, without understanding that Americans were a citizen of their state first and to the nation as a whole second prior to the ACW. Even after the war, while there was a growing national consciousness, until the New Deal, state governments, and not the federal government, played a larger role in the day to day affairs of the people.

I do understand that America has its own institutions and the game should reflect that, but the game isn't simply about America as i said and the discussion isn't either, thus i'm discussing the mechanics of slavery on a wider scope than just a single country, please keep that in mind.
Also, on the issue of luxury taxation you talked about, it ties in with what i said before: upper classes always got less taxation than the lower ones because of their bigger political power, of course you COULD tax the luxury goods and the landowners to compensate for the lack of lower strata taxation that the slaves represent, but then you would have to contend with their opposition, this was literally one of the main reasons why the French Revolution begun: the king couldn't muster enough power to challenge his upper strata to pay the country's debt.
if the U.S. has a different population with different ideas, it will be reflected on their country's politics and I.G., but the fact that slavery is less profitable to the State because of its removal of a taxation source and strenghtening of aristocracy is undeniable.

 

[Vohen]

I don't know if I agree with this. Anti-slavery feeling (including but not limited to abolitionism) came from two big sources:

1) Moralism, influenced by the Second Great Awakening in particular. This was mostly mostly a middle and upper class phenomenon and was more associated with abolitionism.

2) Fear that the expansion of slavery would cut off the frontier in the west. This was more of a lower class phenomenon and tended to lead to support for Free Soil (ie no further expansion of slavery)

These are not necessarily discrete motivations and do overlap; however, I don't think tapping blacks as consumers for Northern products was a big concern. If anything, Northern industrialists had a strong incentive to maintain the plantation system, since it was feeding the textile industry its raw materials.

A good test of this comes in Reconstruction. If Northern industrialists and liberals had been more concerned about getting more consumers for the American industrial economy, they would have pushed for free land and cheap credit in the South. If they were more concerned about maintaining supplies of cotton, they would have opposed breaking up the plantations and pursued hard money policy to force black and white laborers into share cropping.

Reconstruction, even during its Radical phase, pursued the latter strategy. There were other factors, but securing high cotton production was a big part of why it did.

Good points, I was looking at it from one side, but its definitely a complex issue with many factors involved.
Though I have to say, moralism is usually cited as a big reason for many things throughout history, from great deeds to terrible atrocities, but more often then not it ends up being only the "official" rhetorical justification, and the real reason is purely on political or economical interests instead.
And of course, being moved by their own self interest will indeed mean they will be very concerned for their raw supplies, but I don't believe it contradicts my point in essence.

 

[EUnderhill]

I do understand that America has its own institutions and the game should reflect that, but the game isn't simply about America as i said and the discussion isn't either, thus i'm discussing the mechanics of slavery on a wider scope than just a single country, please keep that in mind.
Also, on the issue of luxury taxation you talked about, it ties in with what i said before: upper classes always got less taxation than the lower ones because of their bigger political power, of course you COULD tax the luxury goods and the landowners to compensate for the lack of lower strata taxation that the slaves represent, but then you would have to contend with their opposition, this was literally one of the main reasons why the French Revolution begun: the king couldn't muster enough power to challenge his upper strata to pay the country's debt.
if the U.S. has a different population with different ideas, it will be reflected on their country's politics and I.G., but the fact that slavery is less profitable to the State because of its removal of a taxation source and strenghtening of aristocracy is undeniable.

There are three major slave powers: USA, Brazil and Ottomans. Only one of them had an epic scale war over it pretty much dialed in by 1836. Prioritize accordingly. You do seem to miss that at least in the American South, the wealthy people paid the taxes, as the basis for taxes was land, and it was the planter class that owned most of the land. You can't tax the property of the landless. Outside of a few coastal cities, there was no middle-class; the professions largely filled by the second and third sons of the planter class having been sent north for their education. Not that the wealthy minded paying the taxes, as the untaxed were excluded from political rights, by poll taxes if not on property.

 

[Vernichtere]

Slavery and industrialization would only work in export focused countries, hell it is still the case today, countries were sweat shops are widespread are mainly export focused countries and mainly in Asia. So it would be a fight between if you would want a quick buck by maintaining cash crops or sweat shops to export to markets abroad or develop a market at home and expand a consumer base in which case you will prefer to pay your workers enough to buy the goods you produce. Each are different models and you can begiin as an export focus country with slave wages and transition to more home market focus with better pay and living standards, in essence this is what happened in China the last 30 years so it would be nice to model that in the game.

Yes, industrialization and slavery don't have to contradict each other, but only when it comes to export. Even in relation to North America, the plantations only made sense because the products were sold and finished goods were acquired with them.

Slavery doesn't make much sense on another level. There is little interest in investing in broad education. The money acquired from export can be used by the slave owners to maintain their own power, even against resistance from the free population. The slave owners have no natural interest in taxes or any regulations. But with that one inevitably falls behind. In the event of a conflict, you have a monoculture that has bad cards. Whether the paid farmer works marginally better than the slave does not matter. The side effects are more crucial.

Another example are resource-rich countries. If the resources are in private hands, there is no need to industrialize

 

[EUnderhill]

Yes, industrialization and slavery don't have to contradict each other, but only when it comes to export. Even in relation to North America, the plantations only made sense because the products were sold and finished goods were acquired with them.

Slavery doesn't make much sense on another level. There is little interest in investing in broad education. The money acquired from export can be used by the slave owners to maintain their own power, even against resistance from the free population. The slave owners have no natural interest in taxes or any regulations. But with that one inevitably falls behind. In the event of a conflict, you have a monoculture that has bad cards. Whether the paid farmer works marginally better than the slave does not matter. The side effects are more crucial.

Another example are resource-rich countries. If the resources are in private hands, there is no need to industrialize

Slavery was an institution that transcended economics at least as practiced in USA. Its intractability was also rooted in the theory most closely ascribed to the South Carolina senator John Calhoun, that Black servitude was a necessary condition for white freedom.

 

[Vernichtere]

Slavery was an institution that transcended economics at least as practiced in USA. Its intractability was also rooted in the theory most closely ascribed to the South Carolina senator John Calhoun, that Black servitude was a necessary condition for white freedom.

That's always the case. The slave owner will then tell you that it is for everyone's benefit. This is no different in export-oriented countries with very low wages. People think of themselves as good. In this respect, exploiters will also find reasons that they themselves believe. Of course, the free poor did not benefit in the long term either. But at short notice you could get some handouts or work as an overseer.

Of course, the matter does not take care of itself. Slavery can be flexible. But it is just not particularly adaptable as soon as other forces start to fight it. I can theoretically introduce slavery even today. But that assumes that I already have an industry and that the other countries leave me alone, permanently. Then I just dump to myself, completely dependent on export. But these countries will not leave me alone. And the slaves will revolt again and again.

EditH:
Like any monopoly, the slave owner has little interest in promoting competition. On the contrary, power is used to perpetuate one's own status. Which is not particularly beneficial in terms of private industrialization.

With regard to overt slavery, the problems are most evident. But similar mechanisms have also been observed in Latin America, where the landowners were quite strong.

 

[EUnderhill]

That's always the case. The slave owner will then tell you that it is for everyone's benefit. This is no different in export-oriented countries with very low wages. People think of themselves as good. In this respect, exploiters will also find reasons that they themselves believe. Of course, the free poor did not benefit in the long term either. But at short notice you could get some handouts or work as an overseer.

Of course, the matter does not take care of itself. Slavery can be flexible. But it is just not particularly adaptable as soon as other forces start to fight it. I can theoretically introduce slavery even today. But that assumes that I already have an industry and that the other countries leave me alone, permanently. Then I just dump to myself, completely dependent on export. But these countries will not leave me alone. And the slaves will revolt again and again.

EditH:
Like any monopoly, the slave owner has little interest in promoting competition. On the contrary, power is used to perpetuate one's own status. Which is not particularly beneficial in terms of private industrialization.

With regard to overt slavery, the problems are most evident. But similar mechanisms have also been observed in Latin America, where the landowners were quite strong.

Prior to Calhoun, the apologists rallied around the "necessary evil" argument. Calhoun transformed it into the "positive good" theory. By the time of Calhoun's death, slave-picked cotton had become so intertwined in the economies of both North and South that only the catastrophe of war outweighed the catastrophe of sudden abolition. Only when the destruction of war had come could abolition be contemplated, and Lincoln seized the moment. While abolition did little to elevate the redneck economically, the status bestowed under Jim Crow was accepted as fair compensation.

 

[Vernichtere]

Prior to Calhoun, the apologists rallied around the "necessary evil" argument. Calhoun transformed it into the "positive good" theory. By the time of Calhoun's death, slave-picked cotton had become so intertwined in the economies of both North and South that only the catastrophe of war outweighed the catastrophe of sudden abolition. Only when the destruction of war had come could abolition be contemplated, and Lincoln seized the moment. While abolition did little to elevate the redneck economically, the status bestowed under Jim Crow was accepted as fair compensation.

The reasoning has always been similar. If you look at discussions about the justification of Russian serfdom you will find similar justifications. Before that, the Polish nobles justified the exploitation of the peasants with the Sarmatian rule: the nobility supposedly belonged to a different people. In itself, any form of exploitation is always justified ideologically and presented as altruistic and beneficial to the community. In relation to modern slavery, however, a race theory had to be invented, otherwise justification would have become much more difficult. Of course, such a theory then develops a life of its own and also outlasts the reason why it was brought into the world.

And of course the ideology has to be designed in such a way that those indirectly injured also think they have an advantage. You're doing badly, but at least it is above the black. The wagon castle mentality also acts as the last line of defense: every change promises a catastrophe from the angry mob.

In relation to the game, it will be interesting to see whether the economic power of the landlords and slave owners can be represented and the effects that went with it. These should definitely oppose any form of taxation and customs duties. Which makes it more difficult for the player to finance anything.

 

[Blindbohemian]

In regards to the new Vic III dev diary, if higher authority from despotic laws makes it easier to get things done, and lower authority from democratic laws make it harder to get things done, will Victoria III's meta be to turn your country authoritarian if you want anything to happen?

Kind of like how Hearts of Iron IV penalizes the player for having a Civilian Economy and encourages a "Total War" economy and thus the meta is to get there as quickly as possible, even though in reality having your economy focused only on war goods would cause a lot of problems in the long run.

If this is the case my hope is that playing democratic and having relatively low authority would confer other bonuses to make a democratic playthrough possible.

Government/player wants to be despotic to get things done.

Pops aren’t happy about this. Rabble rabble rabble.

Despotism has to be sneaky, or limited to where it really counts.

Sounds about right to me?

 

[kviiri]

Government/player wants to be despotic to get things done.

Pops aren’t happy about this. Rabble rabble rabble.

Despotism has to be sneaky, or limited to where it really counts.

Sounds about right to me?

This is about my understanding as well. It was also noted that Absolute Monarchy is not "absolute" in the sense that the monarch's word is the law... well, I mean, it is, but only if there are enough people willing to uphold that law. So I imagine it'll look more or less like the following at the extremes: despotist governments have largely unhappy pops with limited political representation, but a core of order-maintaining elites who must remain happy or the whole thing collapses like a house of cards --- while liberal governments have a much broader base of of interests to satisfy, but the majority tends to be represented and happy so mass movements are less likely.

 

[kviiri]

This is about my understanding as well. It was also noted that Absolute Monarchy is not "absolute" in the sense that the monarch's word is the law... well, I mean, it is, but only if there are enough people willing to uphold that law. So I imagine it'll look more or less like the following at the extremes: despotist governments have largely unhappy pops with limited political representation, but a core of order-maintaining elites who must remain happy or the whole thing collapses like a house of cards --- while liberal governments have a much broader base of of interests to satisfy, but the majority tends to be represented and happy so mass movements are less likely.

And as a separate addendum to my own post, you cannot completely shield your country from foreign ideals, so your power in despotist governance will constantly be under siege by liberal and radical ideologies spreading from abroad. You can try to keep the population uneducated and illiterate so they won't be as suspectible --- but then you lose on the benefits education would provide them.

 

[alanschu]

"Grub first, then ethics", if your pops are better of than for example in the democracys that are bordering you why should they revolt? Does it not seem extremely stupid to overthrow the monarchy that probably did a better job than the nearby democracy? And you should not forget that unlike the nobility back then who of course would rather keep more of the money for themselves the player can choose to just hand out social reforms like candy (and hopefully this can be done without having to cheese the system like in vicky 2 where "losing" a few wars was required to get social reforms a bit early).

One aspect I think the game would benefit from is, especially as literacy and consciousness (however they exist in CK3) goes up, people take notice of other regions and it impacts their militancy/demands of their governments.

Recognizing you're clearly doing better than everyone else should IMO have a cooling effect on a lot of people. Maybe it'd also allow for differing ideologies to potentially benefit by knocking down an edge case nation doing well just to undermine any pops from thinking that's a good idea.

I do think that there should be concerted efforts to and from things like socialism. If I'm making all my neighbors communist AND it's made the countries more powerful and raised standard of living, I'd expect Capitalist Industrialists to really be keen on "uh, those places aren't free.. we totes need to invade to help them" haha

 

[Vohen]

One thing I'm really interested in is on how the game will deal with totalitarianism.
While throughout the game it should be quite difficult to keep hold of absolute power as your pops become literate and aware of their political situation, in the late game with the advent of mass politics and new communication methods, ideologies like fascism and communism (and maybe even reactionaries) should be able to employ means of subterfuge and political repression to very effciently quell dissent and nip it in the bud.
Would be a late game version of a high authority gameplay, but should only come to be in pretty extreme situations, you'd need to really radicalize your pops to get it, so sort of a high risk high reward gameplay.

 

[EUnderhill]

The reasoning has always been similar. If you look at discussions about the justification of Russian serfdom you will find similar justifications. Before that, the Polish nobles justified the exploitation of the peasants with the Sarmatian rule: the nobility supposedly belonged to a different people. In itself, any form of exploitation is always justified ideologically and presented as altruistic and beneficial to the community. In relation to modern slavery, however, a race theory had to be invented, otherwise justification would have become much more difficult. Of course, such a theory then develops a life of its own and also outlasts the reason why it was brought into the world.

And of course the ideology has to be designed in such a way that those indirectly injured also think they have an advantage. You're doing badly, but at least it is above the black. The wagon castle mentality also acts as the last line of defense: every change promises a catastrophe from the angry mob.

In relation to the game, it will be interesting to see whether the economic power of the landlords and slave owners can be represented and the effects that went with it. These should definitely oppose any form of taxation and customs duties. Which makes it more difficult for the player to finance anything.

It will be tricky to model, we probably will have to settle for some kludges. That elevated status was popular; folks fought to keep it for the better part of a century. One of our greatest political talents, George Wallace, originally ran for Alabama governor promising better roads and schools - but all the crowds wanted was more segregation, so to win he had to run on that platform. It is that mindset, one that defies the economic incentives, that won't follow the modeling nicely.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

Yep. I think it's a case of "you can only have two of the following at once":

1. The (gameplay) advantages of authoritarianism
2. The economic advantages of a literate population
3. Political stability / few rebellions

I can probably only get one, but the AI is likely to not have any of those.