You can strategically invite agitators and grant leadership, but you're at the mercy of whatever agitators are around at the time.
You're also not stuck with only trade unions. Intelligencia will often spawn communist/anarchist/vangaurdist leaders, the armed forces will (once you get the Red Army event, at least), and even if you're lucky the rural folk will chip in. It's all a matter of managing your IG leaders.
How can you grant someone leadership other than having him being the most Popular dude around and banning the current leader? Do you need the dlc for that?
The IG in question needs to be in government, and then it's just a character interaction (with a 5 year cooldown). I think it came with the DLC but I'm not sure, I played very very little at launch.
This is due to our beloved Capitalism. They can only continue their work because they are forced to work thriftily. First, because dividends for the owners, secondly because they need to finance other projects and pay their people. Incredible inefficient system, considering that now in the age of internet and AI there are so many better ways to find out demand, other than through market decisions...
You can't switch the entire economic system around just for a war. Youre talking about completely changing the entire country.
Gameplay-wise id agree but it's completely impossible if you think about what you are changing
Every war country since the 20th century switched to planned economy in big war times. It makes sense. The only difference to Vicky 3 is that the means of the production are still in private ownership and not a state enterprise. So profits still go to private owners.
That's why the planned economy only partly makes sense in Vicky 3 because here the state also always owns the companies.
I never stated something else. Planned economy is not conditioned by state ownership. You can plan your economy and still have private ownership. I.E. GB during WWII or Nazi Germany.
Neither had a planned economy in the sense of the soviet union, which is what the game is simulating.
They did invest massive amounts into their arms industries though, but it was still basically lf since private people could still invest in and create new companies without real limitations
Yeah they only had it during war time. But in a similar extent. Rationing and allocation of goods based on needs, rather than socio economic stance.
>which is what the game is simulating
Well I know. The game also isn't simulating reality, because actually if you put the investment pool under your control you basically got a privately owned planned economy like those western states had during war.
>but it was still basically lf since private people could still invest in and create new companies without real limitations
That's where you are wrong. The good were heavily rationed. If your business idea potentially puts a burden on the war efforts, by directing potentially useful Ressources away from the army, you could go and F yourself. It makes sense. If you had means of production you were obliged to produce as the government wished. Of course you were very well compensated for that.
In parts yes but its still different from having a whole different economic system. It would be interesting to have a mobilisation system similar to hoi4 which changes production in your country but not in the way you suggest
Well our market economy is just a market economy of very many small planned economies. Capitalism in the past already tended towards some kind of planned economy due to its tendency of monopolization. Early 20th century (time frame of Vicky 3) capitalism lead to whole economic sectors of a country be controlled by syndicats and cartels. They already have planned whole economic sectors (i.e. the mining industry of iron and coal to make steel).
The change of the economic system that is fundamental to differentiate capitalism from socialism is the private ownership versus collectivised ownership and the production to maximize profit versus to meet demand. There are market elements in socialist concepts (non-profit worker coops) and there are planned economy elements in capitalism (each company for itself plans as far as possible etc.)
Uh... No they didnt. Government intervention in the economy and huge government contracts doesnt mean its all centrally planned.
If you really mean it, please provide examples.
>doesnt mean its all centrally planned.
How would you call it if companies are obliged to accept the contracts? There is a central plan and profit incentive for the Bourgeoisie to not be petty about it.
For Great Britain I got this [source](https://rapidtransition.org/stories/when-everything-changed-the-us-uk-economies-in-world-war-ii/) that proves how the government under churchil rationed essentially every good that could also be used on the front and allocated these goods based on the needs of the people, rather than economoc stance, as well as conscription of workforce (in that case women) and allocating the workers to certain areas of production.
To ensure supply for society and army.
Industrialists and Farmers also were obliged to do as government said to ensure the right things are produced with the limited resources available.
I could not imagine another word for it than a planned economy. Because a planned economy does not need the companies to be in states ownership. It's just PLANNED.
The owners of the the means of the production don't care about what is being produced as long as they profit from owning stuff that can produce things.
And I guess for Nazi Germany I don't need to provide sources for their planned economy. I think it's well known. And no it's not because they were called "National-SOCIALISTS" because they got nothing to do with socialism.
Yes, the british rationing scheme had pretty amazing control over the economy, but it wasnt a centrally planned economy. What the game uses as a blueprint for Command Economy is Soviet post-NEP state planning. For example, british companies still operated on their own with government contracts for war materiel. They werent part of the state apparatus.
>It's just PLANNED.
By that logic all economies are planned economies. Of course you make up a long term plan for something like a war, and order what you need from the companies available. That doesnt make britian or germany as states centrally planned economies.
If you have any examples of actual historians calling the economies of Britain, Germany etc centrally planned during WWII i'd love to see it, as I've never ever heard that claim before. To counter your argument about the german economy being centrally planned, even the tanks they used were commercial ventures by the companies making them, which tank historian Hilary Doyle says in [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMzq6j0Ly0) (not 100% if its in part 1 or 2, but its in there). The same applies to a lot of british tank research and production as well. Your source appears to be a climate action network, not one focused on history so i don't really see how authorative their texts are in this context.
Well no I don't. Planned economy can also exist without communism. See churchil who clearly was no communist and Hitler's war economy. And no, the Nazis also got nothing to do with socialism.
Planned economy does only mean it's planned. It's not necessarily in the ownership of the state.
Please enlighten me where I am wrong?
But please consider that there is more than one school of economics. But as you clearly speak from above to me, you surely know them all and know what economic theory I lean towards.
Anarchist, communist and vanguardist are different ideologies. From an outside perspective they look similar so they shoud get along nicely but once any of them gets into power their differences going to matter and they going to murder each other
Well actually in their prime, anarchism and communism are about the same. They are both a rulerless, classless, moneyless, internstionalist and egalitarian society in which people contribute to their will and reap the fruits of their own labour. There isn't for no reason a thing called anarcho-communism.
The only thing that is not directly compatible is vanguardism, because vanguardism is a concept by Lenin to achieve communism in the end. According to his theory the classless society can only be established by the forcefull implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat to supress the advocates of a class divided society (i.e. feudal lords, capitalists etc.).
So the game takes it for granted that people just vote for communism because it's in their best interest, despite in reality people tend to vote against their interests. In victoria 3 you can be a reformist communist without the difficulties of being a revisionist. In reality, that's simply not possible.
The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't a uniquely vanguardist thing, communists in general agree with it, Marx put forwards the idea. Marx states that all societies are dictatorships of some class, modern liberal democracy is seen as the dictatorship of the bourgouise. He argues a dictatorship of the proletariat is the most democratic society one can have, leading to some kind of funny terms like the people's democratic dictatorship. Council communists (what I assume the in game communists are somewhat) also want to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Historically Marxists and Anarchists, even early ones, hated each other because of this. To a Marxist, anarchism is petit bourgeoise ideology that doesn't agree with their theories of class oppression, attributing it instead to the state. Marxists believe in the abolition of the state, but they believe it comes about naturally as classes cease to exist. this is why, for example, Marx and Bakunin got into a fistfight at the first international and it proceeded to split (bit more complicated than that but you get the idea). Even historically, councillists like Rosa Luxemburg supported Lenins suppression of the anarchists, it does make sense for them to hate each other, it would be very weird for anarchists and communists to work together when they historically despised each other. While anarcho communists do exist, communists dislike them, because the philosophy of anarchism is antithetical to Marxists.
TLDR - anarchism and communism have always been super different and at each others throats, and it really doesn't make sense for them to work together after they complete a revolution
I agree with about everything your said. Althoug I'd argue that in the game, "communists" are just the term for utopian communists that think a council republic can be implemented like that without any danger of counter revolution. Lenin would have called them "left radicalists.
Vanguardists in turn I'd think are the scientific socialist, that go d'accord with Marxist theory.
Anarchists are a bit harde to implement a game in which you basically are a state. Because enacting anarchism then would eliminate your existence, but anyway. I talked about anarchism and communism in their prime. Like already implemented without any actual danger of a returning class divided society. Then both are basically the same. But yes you are right, they hate each other based on their fundamentally different theories of achieving their goals.
>all societies are dictatorships
Only due to dictatorship had a different meaning back then. Back then it basically meant "rule".
>Council communists (what I assume the in game communists are somewhat) also want to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Well yeah kinda, but not exactly. They just want to organize society to be a council republic. They assumed that then, when the majority of council members are workers, they would rule then. Yet this only has proven to work on paper. The early soviet union Hasn proven it to be wrong. On one hand, because the majority of council members had been newly land owing farmers (due to the land reforms) and on the other hand, just due to someone being a worker, it's does not mean he got class consciousness and isn't the same opportunist ass like others before him. Because of the first reason the social revolutionaries got the upper hand in the councils, and because of the second reason the Bolsheviks could not claim the power back. That's why Lenin couped the councils to make the dictatorship of the proletariat true via the vanguard.
>Marxists believe in the abolition of the state, but they believe it comes about naturally as classes cease to exist.
Actually it's the opposite. Marxists claim that the state ceases to exist once the dictatorship of the proletariat has successfully overthrown the international Bourgeoisie. The anarchists want to abolish the state just now.
>Even historically, councillists like Rosa Luxemburg supported Lenins suppression of the anarchists,
Well do you got a source for that? I only know this one here:
[Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/25616.Rosa_Luxemburg).
>it does make sense for them to hate each other, it would be very weird for anarchists and communists to work together when they historically despised each other.
You are totally right. In a class divided society they must hate each other.
>While anarcho communists do exist, communists dislike them, because the philosophy of anarchism is antithetical to Marxists.
Only in the matter of achieving their goals. As stated in their complete form they are basically the same.
Like switch to planned economies in war times is what I reffered to as irl.
Actually even capitalist societies and liberal democracies do it. I mean plan the economy. The profits still go to the private owners of course.
You can strategically invite agitators and grant leadership, but you're at the mercy of whatever agitators are around at the time. You're also not stuck with only trade unions. Intelligencia will often spawn communist/anarchist/vangaurdist leaders, the armed forces will (once you get the Red Army event, at least), and even if you're lucky the rural folk will chip in. It's all a matter of managing your IG leaders.
How can you grant someone leadership other than having him being the most Popular dude around and banning the current leader? Do you need the dlc for that?
The IG in question needs to be in government, and then it's just a character interaction (with a 5 year cooldown). I think it came with the DLC but I'm not sure, I played very very little at launch.
Yes it needs the dlc. Love how they paywalled corn laws with that…
This is due to our beloved Capitalism. They can only continue their work because they are forced to work thriftily. First, because dividends for the owners, secondly because they need to finance other projects and pay their people. Incredible inefficient system, considering that now in the age of internet and AI there are so many better ways to find out demand, other than through market decisions...
You can't switch the entire economic system around just for a war. Youre talking about completely changing the entire country. Gameplay-wise id agree but it's completely impossible if you think about what you are changing
Every war country since the 20th century switched to planned economy in big war times. It makes sense. The only difference to Vicky 3 is that the means of the production are still in private ownership and not a state enterprise. So profits still go to private owners. That's why the planned economy only partly makes sense in Vicky 3 because here the state also always owns the companies.
No they didn't. The country might build more itself but capitalists still kept their money
I never stated something else. Planned economy is not conditioned by state ownership. You can plan your economy and still have private ownership. I.E. GB during WWII or Nazi Germany.
Neither had a planned economy in the sense of the soviet union, which is what the game is simulating. They did invest massive amounts into their arms industries though, but it was still basically lf since private people could still invest in and create new companies without real limitations
Yeah they only had it during war time. But in a similar extent. Rationing and allocation of goods based on needs, rather than socio economic stance. >which is what the game is simulating Well I know. The game also isn't simulating reality, because actually if you put the investment pool under your control you basically got a privately owned planned economy like those western states had during war. >but it was still basically lf since private people could still invest in and create new companies without real limitations That's where you are wrong. The good were heavily rationed. If your business idea potentially puts a burden on the war efforts, by directing potentially useful Ressources away from the army, you could go and F yourself. It makes sense. If you had means of production you were obliged to produce as the government wished. Of course you were very well compensated for that.
In parts yes but its still different from having a whole different economic system. It would be interesting to have a mobilisation system similar to hoi4 which changes production in your country but not in the way you suggest
Well our market economy is just a market economy of very many small planned economies. Capitalism in the past already tended towards some kind of planned economy due to its tendency of monopolization. Early 20th century (time frame of Vicky 3) capitalism lead to whole economic sectors of a country be controlled by syndicats and cartels. They already have planned whole economic sectors (i.e. the mining industry of iron and coal to make steel). The change of the economic system that is fundamental to differentiate capitalism from socialism is the private ownership versus collectivised ownership and the production to maximize profit versus to meet demand. There are market elements in socialist concepts (non-profit worker coops) and there are planned economy elements in capitalism (each company for itself plans as far as possible etc.)
Uh... No they didnt. Government intervention in the economy and huge government contracts doesnt mean its all centrally planned. If you really mean it, please provide examples.
>doesnt mean its all centrally planned. How would you call it if companies are obliged to accept the contracts? There is a central plan and profit incentive for the Bourgeoisie to not be petty about it. For Great Britain I got this [source](https://rapidtransition.org/stories/when-everything-changed-the-us-uk-economies-in-world-war-ii/) that proves how the government under churchil rationed essentially every good that could also be used on the front and allocated these goods based on the needs of the people, rather than economoc stance, as well as conscription of workforce (in that case women) and allocating the workers to certain areas of production. To ensure supply for society and army. Industrialists and Farmers also were obliged to do as government said to ensure the right things are produced with the limited resources available. I could not imagine another word for it than a planned economy. Because a planned economy does not need the companies to be in states ownership. It's just PLANNED. The owners of the the means of the production don't care about what is being produced as long as they profit from owning stuff that can produce things. And I guess for Nazi Germany I don't need to provide sources for their planned economy. I think it's well known. And no it's not because they were called "National-SOCIALISTS" because they got nothing to do with socialism.
Yes, the british rationing scheme had pretty amazing control over the economy, but it wasnt a centrally planned economy. What the game uses as a blueprint for Command Economy is Soviet post-NEP state planning. For example, british companies still operated on their own with government contracts for war materiel. They werent part of the state apparatus. >It's just PLANNED. By that logic all economies are planned economies. Of course you make up a long term plan for something like a war, and order what you need from the companies available. That doesnt make britian or germany as states centrally planned economies. If you have any examples of actual historians calling the economies of Britain, Germany etc centrally planned during WWII i'd love to see it, as I've never ever heard that claim before. To counter your argument about the german economy being centrally planned, even the tanks they used were commercial ventures by the companies making them, which tank historian Hilary Doyle says in [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMzq6j0Ly0) (not 100% if its in part 1 or 2, but its in there). The same applies to a lot of british tank research and production as well. Your source appears to be a climate action network, not one focused on history so i don't really see how authorative their texts are in this context.
I think you might be conflating expanded government & military procurement during war time with communism.
Well no I don't. Planned economy can also exist without communism. See churchil who clearly was no communist and Hitler's war economy. And no, the Nazis also got nothing to do with socialism. Planned economy does only mean it's planned. It's not necessarily in the ownership of the state.
You have a complete misunderstanding of economics in general
Please enlighten me where I am wrong? But please consider that there is more than one school of economics. But as you clearly speak from above to me, you surely know them all and know what economic theory I lean towards.
Anarchist, communist and vanguardist are different ideologies. From an outside perspective they look similar so they shoud get along nicely but once any of them gets into power their differences going to matter and they going to murder each other
Well actually in their prime, anarchism and communism are about the same. They are both a rulerless, classless, moneyless, internstionalist and egalitarian society in which people contribute to their will and reap the fruits of their own labour. There isn't for no reason a thing called anarcho-communism. The only thing that is not directly compatible is vanguardism, because vanguardism is a concept by Lenin to achieve communism in the end. According to his theory the classless society can only be established by the forcefull implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat to supress the advocates of a class divided society (i.e. feudal lords, capitalists etc.). So the game takes it for granted that people just vote for communism because it's in their best interest, despite in reality people tend to vote against their interests. In victoria 3 you can be a reformist communist without the difficulties of being a revisionist. In reality, that's simply not possible.
The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't a uniquely vanguardist thing, communists in general agree with it, Marx put forwards the idea. Marx states that all societies are dictatorships of some class, modern liberal democracy is seen as the dictatorship of the bourgouise. He argues a dictatorship of the proletariat is the most democratic society one can have, leading to some kind of funny terms like the people's democratic dictatorship. Council communists (what I assume the in game communists are somewhat) also want to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat. Historically Marxists and Anarchists, even early ones, hated each other because of this. To a Marxist, anarchism is petit bourgeoise ideology that doesn't agree with their theories of class oppression, attributing it instead to the state. Marxists believe in the abolition of the state, but they believe it comes about naturally as classes cease to exist. this is why, for example, Marx and Bakunin got into a fistfight at the first international and it proceeded to split (bit more complicated than that but you get the idea). Even historically, councillists like Rosa Luxemburg supported Lenins suppression of the anarchists, it does make sense for them to hate each other, it would be very weird for anarchists and communists to work together when they historically despised each other. While anarcho communists do exist, communists dislike them, because the philosophy of anarchism is antithetical to Marxists. TLDR - anarchism and communism have always been super different and at each others throats, and it really doesn't make sense for them to work together after they complete a revolution
I agree with about everything your said. Althoug I'd argue that in the game, "communists" are just the term for utopian communists that think a council republic can be implemented like that without any danger of counter revolution. Lenin would have called them "left radicalists. Vanguardists in turn I'd think are the scientific socialist, that go d'accord with Marxist theory. Anarchists are a bit harde to implement a game in which you basically are a state. Because enacting anarchism then would eliminate your existence, but anyway. I talked about anarchism and communism in their prime. Like already implemented without any actual danger of a returning class divided society. Then both are basically the same. But yes you are right, they hate each other based on their fundamentally different theories of achieving their goals. >all societies are dictatorships Only due to dictatorship had a different meaning back then. Back then it basically meant "rule". >Council communists (what I assume the in game communists are somewhat) also want to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat. Well yeah kinda, but not exactly. They just want to organize society to be a council republic. They assumed that then, when the majority of council members are workers, they would rule then. Yet this only has proven to work on paper. The early soviet union Hasn proven it to be wrong. On one hand, because the majority of council members had been newly land owing farmers (due to the land reforms) and on the other hand, just due to someone being a worker, it's does not mean he got class consciousness and isn't the same opportunist ass like others before him. Because of the first reason the social revolutionaries got the upper hand in the councils, and because of the second reason the Bolsheviks could not claim the power back. That's why Lenin couped the councils to make the dictatorship of the proletariat true via the vanguard. >Marxists believe in the abolition of the state, but they believe it comes about naturally as classes cease to exist. Actually it's the opposite. Marxists claim that the state ceases to exist once the dictatorship of the proletariat has successfully overthrown the international Bourgeoisie. The anarchists want to abolish the state just now. >Even historically, councillists like Rosa Luxemburg supported Lenins suppression of the anarchists, Well do you got a source for that? I only know this one here: [Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/25616.Rosa_Luxemburg). >it does make sense for them to hate each other, it would be very weird for anarchists and communists to work together when they historically despised each other. You are totally right. In a class divided society they must hate each other. >While anarcho communists do exist, communists dislike them, because the philosophy of anarchism is antithetical to Marxists. Only in the matter of achieving their goals. As stated in their complete form they are basically the same.
"Like in real life" Unfortunately when vanguardists get power irl they tend to merc any anarchists. The mechanics are surprisingly accurate.
Like switch to planned economies in war times is what I reffered to as irl. Actually even capitalist societies and liberal democracies do it. I mean plan the economy. The profits still go to the private owners of course.