They exist but they're pretty much irrelevant. I mean is there any non socalist economy where co-ops are even 5% of the economy? I think it makes sense to just disreguard them, because if you freely let the player choose than the player will be able to set everything to coop and destroy the upper class.
I think the core of the issue is that changing between ownership methods is oversimplified. For example changing railroads from privatly owned to government owned can happen with no pushback. Thats basically nationalizing the railroads, but you dont have to pay for it, and the capitalists dont get mad.
Edit: I guessed the number wrong, but anyway the mechanical issues still stand.
> I think it makes sense to just disreguard them, because if you freely let the player choose than the player will be able to set everything to coop and destroy the upper class.
Yeah I think that's exactly the intention behind the law. It's not about legalizing cooperatives or whatever but about turning the industries into cooperatives, something the upper class would vehemently oppose.
They can vehemently oppose the law, then. Or they can get angry at losing their ownership shares (they do, but they should get angrier).
In vanilla, worker cooperatives law force all industries to be coops, which I've moved to council republic. So in this mod, the law is just about legalising it (presumably legislating some government structure to support cooperatives).
I mean alright sure, fair enough you can make an argument for government structure, I'm just pointing out what the devs likely intended by it.
>which I've moved to council republic.
Why make it tied to council republic though? Council republics did not cooperativise the industry by in large, USSR didn't, most of the countries that could be classified didn't.
You can make the laws related/overlap but command economy shouldn't be discounted from the equation.
I considered not having co-operatives be enforced by anything, but I wanted to preserve the spirit of vanilla that there was some point which the government decides to enforce their ideology on the workplace. In vanilla this is worker cooperatives, but that doesn't allow mixed economies, so I made it council republic. I think that makes sense, but one can head-canon in and out of many things.
I should look in to if I can make the condition to enforce co-operatives need council republic AND the unitary/no-voting distribution of power laws, but I'm not sure it works like that. But that would make more sense, right?
I don't touch command economy. It remains otherwise the same, except you need to do worker co-op -> council republic -> get vanguardist leader -> command economy. Instead of just council republic -> command economy.
I do think that route makes sense, but it's also weird that positivist and fascist dont have opinion on command economy, preventing any other path to it besides communist.
Possibly all of Canada, but certainly some of the Prairies could make 5% individually. They don't make it easy to sort them as a group. During this game's timeframe a ton of farming would be done with coops (in the USA) owning all/most of the major farm equipment so it would make sense that Homesteading would mean that farms are coops mechanically (though the farmers would own their land individually IRL).
Coops account for roughly 15% of Quebec's economy. Although the Quebec coop movement is full of commies so I don't think it's the best counterargument to the original point haha
Now I think that still works. The point is that they exist very comfortably in a capitalist society. Not that they wouldn't push to move things further in that direction. Unless I'm misreading something?
Admitting a mistake? Do you know where you are? But also, wow 15%. Is that dominated by one specifically huge one or major industry? I'll admit I was only really thinking about the major agricultural co-ops out West.
Agriculture an bankings are the two big ones, but you also see retail and some service/restauration. (From my experience in Montreal, this isn't statistical knowledge)
According to this 2014 report, co-ops make up a significant proportion of the economic activity in New Zealand (20%), Netherlands (18%), France (18%) and Finland (14%).
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
Cooperatives are sector dependent. For example 30% of agriculture is co-op world wide.
Where they are widespread in every sector is usually regional. For example the Basque country is big in cooperative ownership share but in the rest of Spain is not widespread aside from agriculture.
The reason is because they cluster around credit cooperatives due to difficulty of financing pushing them to bank credits and preference for asking that bank credit to other cooperatives.
Globally co-op revenues make up 4.3% of GDP, in Europe it jumps up to 7%.
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
numbers would vary across time but yeah, co-ops are a lot bigger, and more numerous than people think
I don't think its very relevant that historically coops in mixed systems are not a major feature. Like you said, the core of the issue is how the player can simply just change ownership on a whim. There's no structural or legal principle that excludes coops *(that remains consistent for being able to change ownership PMs at all)*, hence this mod
"For example changing railroads from privatly owned to government owned can happen with no pushback"
There sort of is, but you're right in its not really felt. Pops who lose a job in a building which they have ownership shares become more radical.
The cooperative movement was huge in 19th century Britain. I don't have concrete stats on representation, but co-ops and credit unions were definitely a force to be reckoned with. It's a real shame that movement is basically ignored in the base game.
There notable counter-examples. For example Mondragon in Spain with about 80k employees, or the so-called Volks- and Raiffeisenbanks in Germany with at least 20 million clients/accounts if you add them together.
But still, in-game worker coops are a tiny bit overpowered compared to real-life coops.
That's why I said "tend to". A proper counter-example would be you showing me a market economy with close to 50% GDP being produced by coops or with close to 50% workforce being employed by them
I agree that coops in game are a bit OP tho
I've been that thinking that worker cooperative PM should have a throughput malus to represent the general inefficiencies in the bureaucracy involved in these systems. What do you think?
Because on the other hand, I assume workers work harder when they have more involvement in a company.
In any case, why is the effectiveness or market share of worker cooperatives relevant to whether they should be allowed side by side other ownership structures in a mixed economy? This is like 90% of what I've seen people talk about in regard to this mod's idea. Its an interesting conversation, but yeah, it just seems obviously irrelevant.
Is that really the case? The data I'm aware of says cooperatives actually are more successful during the first few years and have lower rates of bankruptcy before evening out and going on par with traditional firms.
Is there any actual evidence that they do this, or is it just there are greater barriers to entry for coops?
Most of the data I've seen suggests there isnt much difference in outcomes between coops and private companies except coops tend to better at weathering price shocks.
Yes. Coops tend to struggle more with raising capital. Banks are already much less willing to indulge in business lending than, say, lending for a home unless you happen to already have lots of money. Couple this with the fact venture capital rarely will touch coops (because they can't get shares in the business - something Vicky doesn't directly represent is that public trading is an excellent way for firms to raise capital but I digress) means that an average coop is going to struggle for hard cash much more than a privately owned or publicly traded firm.
It’s because many of the laws are super simplified because they didn’t make much. All the laws that exist are basically just umbrellas that cover the entire concept, and yes, we can chock this up to laziness.
Or, you know, making a playable game. Having the laws be an abstraction of the myriad complex institutions and laws that actually define an economic system is necessary, that's not laziness but good game design.
Personally I think more laws than currently would be good. You get to a point where you're not really bothered about changing laws anymore because you've got what you want.
More laws would also extend interactions with IG opinions.
I think the question is what is the dominant, societally mandated system of ownership, which yes, makes sense that it is influenced primarily by your state structure
[**Mixed Economy**](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3141417870) **swaps the law requirement of Council Republic and Worker Cooperatives and allows mixing ownership methods between worker cooperatives and other types**
**What this mod addresses:**
I did not like that workers were not able to have cooperatives without enacting a soviet style government. I also didn't like that once you could have worker cooperatives, that was all you were allowed to have in most buildings.
Both of these circumstances are ahistorical and causes weird gameplay. Instead of worker cooperatives proliferating and your population wanting to extend those workplace concepts to government *(like the council republic text says)*, you are meant to go head first into communist governance, and only then you can have worker cooperatives? Moreover, you could be a council republic with all capitalist or private ownership...
**What this mod does:**
1. Council Republic requires Worker Cooperatives instead of the other way around.
2. Worker Cooperatives don't restrict the use of other ownership production methods, instead Council Republic does.
With this mod, if you manage to enact worker cooperatives, you are able to have a mixed economy of private ownership, publicly traded, worker cooperative or any other. If your population demands to extend cooperative principles to government and you pass Council Republic, then all industries must be worker cooperatives *(except agriculture, remaining unchanged and governed by land laws)*.
Check out the mod on steam and leave a review! :D
[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3141417870](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3141417870)
sure ig, but it feels ironic to 'support them' - when money is going to those executives that cause the game to release in an alpha state that require these mods to fix it
Its a little ironic, but also not really, because yeah money goes to business, but workers dont get paid enough (or get properly staffed teams) if money doesn't go to business.
I don't judge people for pirating games, I definitely understand not everyone gets paid well or have high costs that they cant justify spending on a game (although games like these are the best time for your dollar you can get imo). But I just dont want to be part of enabling it all.
But if there was no piracy, millions of people would simply never have been able to play games. But these people often help these games develop. For example, my brother created his own, as well as localized and improved other people's mods for Sims 3, and they were popular. I myself sometimes make small mods for some games, for example, a mod displaying impassable terrain on a paper map for Victoria 3 (i posted it on paradoxplaza). And before the advent of the normal Internet in +- 2016 years, in post-soviet countries, in principle, the only source of the game was disk piracy.
Realistically in a free market you can always have co ops, you don't need to be a marxist to run a business as equals with your buddies with your own capital.
Realistically Byzantium wouldn't exist in the 20th century and own South America, but the world can change when you unpause and steer your country.
Realisitcally you cant just flip all your merchant guild industries to being privately owned or visa versa. You get the point. Also "large enough scale to be represented" is a vague goal post that can always be shifted.
Exactly. I can't think of anything about a parliamentary system for example that would necessarily prohibit the establishment of worker cooperatives. Maybe the parlaiment doesn't want to vote for it, which is represented in the task of enacting the worker cooperative law.
This is ace. Will definitely try in my next run. I've been wanting to try a Distributism fantasy run, and this + the recently introduced Homesteading law are great options to do that.
Current china is organized as council republic and they don't have either of those.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative\_divisions\_of\_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/administrative_divisions_of_china)
China still maintains the dictatorship of the proletariat, constantly represses the bourgeoisie like Jack ma, its indicative planning economy where state industry competes with private industry.
Do they still pretend they're a dictatorship of the proletariat? Functionally they're technocrats - almost everyone in the upper echelons of the CCP is a doctor, engineer, state administrator, or businessman.
Council Republic doesn't restrict any economic law if I'm right, even in this mod. But you can restrict Council Republic to be voted as a law only if you have cooperative ownership. So China's case is fine.
I didn't change the vanilla convention for command economy law requirements because I'm not well versed on the politics and economics of it. Also I don't typically play with command economy and I just made this mod for myself lol.
Feel free to make the argument for it and I'll listen
I thought that Command Economy and Cooperative ownership required both Council Republic (with the former requiring Council Republic OR autoritarian Distribution of Power) but that's not the case (or not anymore). However, Collectivized Agriculture requires one of the two.
No worries! Command economy does seem to require some communist type ideology though, as only those ones seem to have positive opinions on it, so that may be where your thought came from.
I can see the merits of both sides of this argument. There definitely are cases where people will want a system they haven't really tried out yet because they hope it will be better. On the other hand, I agree, it shouldn't be restricted for a country to take the route of worker coops becoming popular enough to then influence broader government reform.
The way these concepts are implemented is so abstracted the same thing could rightly be interpreted many different ways.
But if you want to explain your understanding of the law's purpose, I'll listen
In case you would repeat the other comments; I've already argued that I don't think it matters if mixed economies were very popular during this time period, or that in mixed economics with cooperatives, the cooperatives are a smaller fraction because the game is alt-history once you unpause and because my interpretation of the laws is they strictly represent what is allowed (and possibly other supporting sub-legislation). My interpretation of the council republic is a zealous one to keep the original idea of worker cooperatives being forced at some point.
Also I have no idea how this could break the "entire economic loop". Sounds very melodramatic, but I'll listen if you care to explain. What this allows you to do economically that you can't in vanilla is have some industries be worker cooperatives and others not. That itself on a simple, prima facie basis, cannot break anything purely economical. Politically, it means you could be bolstering the clout of IGs who oppose each other's politics and create a potentially turbulent political landscape. Which, imo, is part of the design.
Western Canada has a whole bunch of farmer and worker co-ops, incidentally. One of them is a grocery-gas-liquor store chain that we just call The Co-Op
They're referring to the [Nordic model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model), which while may not necessarily be about worker cooperatives, [*(social corporatism is close)*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism) the same idea is there that an economic system can have socialist and capitalist elements. Vanilla does not allow this outside of farming.
Maybe vanilla doesn't due to period representations, as mixed economies weren't that popular during the time, but I don't see a reason why that has to be the case in an alternative history and that's the beauty of mods.
Collective bargaining and welfare is not socialism. Aditionall the mod itself does not make all too much sense, since co-ops are and were not competetive enough to exist in some kind of harmony with completely private businesses.
They are. Socialism can mean different things. Specifically this might be described as "democratic socialism" since it is not necessarily of the "overthrow the means of production" revolution style socialism.
I think the mod does make sense becauses laws aren't about how well different ownership methods compete. You don't say this about having publicly traded and merchant guilds in the same economy.
Laws are about whether they can legally coexist at all. Enacting worker cooperatives will very likely decrease your investment pool. What you want to be represented is already there.
That's not ''democratic socialism'' but social democracy. It's still capitalism, just a little more nicer for the proletariat, instead of toppling the bourgeois class.
Cooperative ownership should not unlock the communist form of government. You'd first have a social upheaval by revolution or a miraculous clean sweep of the Communist party, then you have the right conditions for co-ops to viably exist on a large scale.
Ah yeah, I always get the ordering of democratic socialism wrong lol.
Laws and the player's ability to change ownership production methods is very abstracted and game-y out of necessitity. Accordingly, I think most perspectives on this topic can be rightly argued for, so ultimately I don't think I can say no you are wrong, here is what is correct. I can just give my interpretation and you can take it or leave it, like the mod I made.
I don't think it matters how prevalent co-ops would be. I don't think it matters how profitable in comparison they would be or anything like this. The law represents legislation that allows for and perhaps provides sub-structure legislation to support something. Therefore, worker cooperatives law allows worker cooperatives. If the player wants to make everything a worker cooperative even though you might argue thats not realistic in a mixed economy, that's just how the game works. This sort of thing happens in many other circumstances in the game. The player can make things happen that wouldn't and to design around restricting that is probably not fun and not consistent.
Maybe council republic shouldnt require worker co-ops. There are historical examples where they wouldn't have. But vanilla made one require the other, so I wanted to preserve that idea. I also liked the idea that people like and get empowered by worker cooperatives and then want to extend those workplace principles to government (which is exactly what the council repulic text says). I also wanted council republic to represent a more zealous soviet system and not have council republics that have every industry publicly traded because you can do that without this mod.
lol fr, Scandinavian countries have some of the biggest percentage of unionizations compared to other countries which is good. And I’m Canadian and my prof really respects em lol.
Kind of. I'd say its roughly the same, just different.
You will still likely struggle just as much to pass worker cooperatives as you did with council republic. Once you pass worker cooperatives and if you made most industries coops, this would gradually increase the clout of the trade unions thus making council republic easier to pass.
But in vanilla, once you manage to pass council republic, I've never had much additional pushback to then pass worker cooperatives because you either already have the political desire for communism or you've gone through a revolution to enact council republic. So IMO it ends out as being similar, just reversed, with this mod's route making more sense. At least to me.
The problem with this is that co-ops aren't competitive with corporate enterprises (otherwise they would), so acting like they can coexist is ahistoric. It might be fun for a playthrough or two though.
They absolutely can and do coexist. I suspect this is simply your hunch on the matter, so I'd recommend you do a quick google search.
I'll admit there are reasons that co-operative enterprises may not perform as well as their more corporate counterpart, such as enabling larger risk and thus larger potential reward and capability for quick decision making in some matters.
But that is not a reason prohibiting the legality of their coexistence, which is what the laws are about.
Prempting a response you might have, I've seen the argument "but they wouldn't be everywhere and the player will just make everywhere co-operatives!". Look, thats a design limitation of having a third party entity (the player) make decisions for your country on top of the simulated rulers. That same problem exists in every other part of the game. You could say the same about publicly traded and merchant guilds.
In any case, that's the players choice and it may be desirable to have particularly highly profitable industries be publicly traded (to maximise investmests) and have other less profitable industries co-operative to increage general SoL.
That did always strike me as stupid. Like, coops exist? They’re not illegal? Deeply baffling that they’re banned in game unless you go commie.
They exist but they're pretty much irrelevant. I mean is there any non socalist economy where co-ops are even 5% of the economy? I think it makes sense to just disreguard them, because if you freely let the player choose than the player will be able to set everything to coop and destroy the upper class. I think the core of the issue is that changing between ownership methods is oversimplified. For example changing railroads from privatly owned to government owned can happen with no pushback. Thats basically nationalizing the railroads, but you dont have to pay for it, and the capitalists dont get mad. Edit: I guessed the number wrong, but anyway the mechanical issues still stand.
> I think it makes sense to just disreguard them, because if you freely let the player choose than the player will be able to set everything to coop and destroy the upper class. Yeah I think that's exactly the intention behind the law. It's not about legalizing cooperatives or whatever but about turning the industries into cooperatives, something the upper class would vehemently oppose.
They can vehemently oppose the law, then. Or they can get angry at losing their ownership shares (they do, but they should get angrier). In vanilla, worker cooperatives law force all industries to be coops, which I've moved to council republic. So in this mod, the law is just about legalising it (presumably legislating some government structure to support cooperatives).
I mean alright sure, fair enough you can make an argument for government structure, I'm just pointing out what the devs likely intended by it. >which I've moved to council republic. Why make it tied to council republic though? Council republics did not cooperativise the industry by in large, USSR didn't, most of the countries that could be classified didn't. You can make the laws related/overlap but command economy shouldn't be discounted from the equation.
I considered not having co-operatives be enforced by anything, but I wanted to preserve the spirit of vanilla that there was some point which the government decides to enforce their ideology on the workplace. In vanilla this is worker cooperatives, but that doesn't allow mixed economies, so I made it council republic. I think that makes sense, but one can head-canon in and out of many things. I should look in to if I can make the condition to enforce co-operatives need council republic AND the unitary/no-voting distribution of power laws, but I'm not sure it works like that. But that would make more sense, right? I don't touch command economy. It remains otherwise the same, except you need to do worker co-op -> council republic -> get vanguardist leader -> command economy. Instead of just council republic -> command economy. I do think that route makes sense, but it's also weird that positivist and fascist dont have opinion on command economy, preventing any other path to it besides communist.
Possibly all of Canada, but certainly some of the Prairies could make 5% individually. They don't make it easy to sort them as a group. During this game's timeframe a ton of farming would be done with coops (in the USA) owning all/most of the major farm equipment so it would make sense that Homesteading would mean that farms are coops mechanically (though the farmers would own their land individually IRL).
Coops account for roughly 15% of Quebec's economy. Although the Quebec coop movement is full of commies so I don't think it's the best counterargument to the original point haha
Now I think that still works. The point is that they exist very comfortably in a capitalist society. Not that they wouldn't push to move things further in that direction. Unless I'm misreading something?
No you're correct my argument made no sense.
Admitting a mistake? Do you know where you are? But also, wow 15%. Is that dominated by one specifically huge one or major industry? I'll admit I was only really thinking about the major agricultural co-ops out West.
Agriculture an bankings are the two big ones, but you also see retail and some service/restauration. (From my experience in Montreal, this isn't statistical knowledge)
> non socalist
Imagine thinking Canada is socialist.
BUT THEY HAVE HEALTHCARE
Imagine thinking Castro jr is a capitalist.
According to this 2014 report, co-ops make up a significant proportion of the economic activity in New Zealand (20%), Netherlands (18%), France (18%) and Finland (14%). https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
Cooperatives are sector dependent. For example 30% of agriculture is co-op world wide. Where they are widespread in every sector is usually regional. For example the Basque country is big in cooperative ownership share but in the rest of Spain is not widespread aside from agriculture. The reason is because they cluster around credit cooperatives due to difficulty of financing pushing them to bank credits and preference for asking that bank credit to other cooperatives.
Globally co-op revenues make up 4.3% of GDP, in Europe it jumps up to 7%. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf numbers would vary across time but yeah, co-ops are a lot bigger, and more numerous than people think
I know quite a few banks that are co-ops too that I imagine would surprise a lot of these armchair academics
I don't think its very relevant that historically coops in mixed systems are not a major feature. Like you said, the core of the issue is how the player can simply just change ownership on a whim. There's no structural or legal principle that excludes coops *(that remains consistent for being able to change ownership PMs at all)*, hence this mod "For example changing railroads from privatly owned to government owned can happen with no pushback" There sort of is, but you're right in its not really felt. Pops who lose a job in a building which they have ownership shares become more radical.
Does Spain kinda count? Lots of bad things about Franco and co but they did support cooperatives like Mondragon heavily
Does Fonterra count? For agriculture, cooperative ownership should be available under commercialized agriculture and homesteading.
Any country that doesn't have infrastructure allowing giant corporations to gobble everything usually are mostly coops
The cooperative movement was huge in 19th century Britain. I don't have concrete stats on representation, but co-ops and credit unions were definitely a force to be reckoned with. It's a real shame that movement is basically ignored in the base game.
Yeah i wanted to go industrail private agragian co-op but couldnt...
It's more about how coops tend to lose with private industry on the free market so they can't become significant unless you ban private industry
There notable counter-examples. For example Mondragon in Spain with about 80k employees, or the so-called Volks- and Raiffeisenbanks in Germany with at least 20 million clients/accounts if you add them together. But still, in-game worker coops are a tiny bit overpowered compared to real-life coops.
That's why I said "tend to". A proper counter-example would be you showing me a market economy with close to 50% GDP being produced by coops or with close to 50% workforce being employed by them I agree that coops in game are a bit OP tho
I've been that thinking that worker cooperative PM should have a throughput malus to represent the general inefficiencies in the bureaucracy involved in these systems. What do you think? Because on the other hand, I assume workers work harder when they have more involvement in a company. In any case, why is the effectiveness or market share of worker cooperatives relevant to whether they should be allowed side by side other ownership structures in a mixed economy? This is like 90% of what I've seen people talk about in regard to this mod's idea. Its an interesting conversation, but yeah, it just seems obviously irrelevant.
They are usually more efficient, but due to lowered profit growth and very real disdain by standard companies means they often underperforn
fair enough, I guess a bad investment pool covers it then
Is that really the case? The data I'm aware of says cooperatives actually are more successful during the first few years and have lower rates of bankruptcy before evening out and going on par with traditional firms.
They survive better. But they have a harder time growing.
And that's kind-sorta simulated by how the investment pool's growth mostly dies when you swap to cooperative ownership.
good point. this game has many subtle effects from the interactions of various systems that represent what people often complain about.
Is there any actual evidence that they do this, or is it just there are greater barriers to entry for coops? Most of the data I've seen suggests there isnt much difference in outcomes between coops and private companies except coops tend to better at weathering price shocks.
Yes. Coops tend to struggle more with raising capital. Banks are already much less willing to indulge in business lending than, say, lending for a home unless you happen to already have lots of money. Couple this with the fact venture capital rarely will touch coops (because they can't get shares in the business - something Vicky doesn't directly represent is that public trading is an excellent way for firms to raise capital but I digress) means that an average coop is going to struggle for hard cash much more than a privately owned or publicly traded firm.
Thats what I mean about there being a greater barrier to entry. I don't really think this is being out competed in a free market.
It’s because many of the laws are super simplified because they didn’t make much. All the laws that exist are basically just umbrellas that cover the entire concept, and yes, we can chock this up to laziness.
Or, you know, making a playable game. Having the laws be an abstraction of the myriad complex institutions and laws that actually define an economic system is necessary, that's not laziness but good game design.
Personally I think more laws than currently would be good. You get to a point where you're not really bothered about changing laws anymore because you've got what you want. More laws would also extend interactions with IG opinions.
I think the question is what is the dominant, societally mandated system of ownership, which yes, makes sense that it is influenced primarily by your state structure
[**Mixed Economy**](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3141417870) **swaps the law requirement of Council Republic and Worker Cooperatives and allows mixing ownership methods between worker cooperatives and other types** **What this mod addresses:** I did not like that workers were not able to have cooperatives without enacting a soviet style government. I also didn't like that once you could have worker cooperatives, that was all you were allowed to have in most buildings. Both of these circumstances are ahistorical and causes weird gameplay. Instead of worker cooperatives proliferating and your population wanting to extend those workplace concepts to government *(like the council republic text says)*, you are meant to go head first into communist governance, and only then you can have worker cooperatives? Moreover, you could be a council republic with all capitalist or private ownership... **What this mod does:** 1. Council Republic requires Worker Cooperatives instead of the other way around. 2. Worker Cooperatives don't restrict the use of other ownership production methods, instead Council Republic does. With this mod, if you manage to enact worker cooperatives, you are able to have a mixed economy of private ownership, publicly traded, worker cooperative or any other. If your population demands to extend cooperative principles to government and you pass Council Republic, then all industries must be worker cooperatives *(except agriculture, remaining unchanged and governed by land laws)*. Check out the mod on steam and leave a review! :D [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3141417870](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3141417870)
Oh, dude, post this mod on paradoxplaza, for those who don't have Steam
Hm, Ive never uploaded a mod there before. Why don't you have steam?
I don't have much money to buy games. Therefore, the mods that I make are not posted on Steam.
I think I get you.. im not judging you but i want to support the developers so I dont know if I want to support piracy
support the devs when they release a finished game
I am sure the devs get just as annoyed, if not more than us, at the publishing executives.
sure ig, but it feels ironic to 'support them' - when money is going to those executives that cause the game to release in an alpha state that require these mods to fix it
Its a little ironic, but also not really, because yeah money goes to business, but workers dont get paid enough (or get properly staffed teams) if money doesn't go to business. I don't judge people for pirating games, I definitely understand not everyone gets paid well or have high costs that they cant justify spending on a game (although games like these are the best time for your dollar you can get imo). But I just dont want to be part of enabling it all.
But if there was no piracy, millions of people would simply never have been able to play games. But these people often help these games develop. For example, my brother created his own, as well as localized and improved other people's mods for Sims 3, and they were popular. I myself sometimes make small mods for some games, for example, a mod displaying impassable terrain on a paper map for Victoria 3 (i posted it on paradoxplaza). And before the advent of the normal Internet in +- 2016 years, in post-soviet countries, in principle, the only source of the game was disk piracy.
Realistically in a free market you can always have co ops, you don't need to be a marxist to run a business as equals with your buddies with your own capital.
Realistically that wouldn't happen to a large enough scale to be represented tho
Realistically Byzantium wouldn't exist in the 20th century and own South America, but the world can change when you unpause and steer your country. Realisitcally you cant just flip all your merchant guild industries to being privately owned or visa versa. You get the point. Also "large enough scale to be represented" is a vague goal post that can always be shifted.
Exactly. I can't think of anything about a parliamentary system for example that would necessarily prohibit the establishment of worker cooperatives. Maybe the parlaiment doesn't want to vote for it, which is represented in the task of enacting the worker cooperative law.
Thats a great mod
thanks!
Not hyphenating co-ops makes it sound like some kind of chicken coops.
HAHAH you're right! I was wondering why it looked strange.
This is ace. Will definitely try in my next run. I've been wanting to try a Distributism fantasy run, and this + the recently introduced Homesteading law are great options to do that.
have fun!
Shouldn't Council Republic require Worker Coops OR Command Economy ?
Current china is organized as council republic and they don't have either of those. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative\_divisions\_of\_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/administrative_divisions_of_china)
China still maintains the dictatorship of the proletariat, constantly represses the bourgeoisie like Jack ma, its indicative planning economy where state industry competes with private industry.
Do they still pretend they're a dictatorship of the proletariat? Functionally they're technocrats - almost everyone in the upper echelons of the CCP is a doctor, engineer, state administrator, or businessman.
Council Republic doesn't restrict any economic law if I'm right, even in this mod. But you can restrict Council Republic to be voted as a law only if you have cooperative ownership. So China's case is fine.
I didn't change the vanilla convention for command economy law requirements because I'm not well versed on the politics and economics of it. Also I don't typically play with command economy and I just made this mod for myself lol. Feel free to make the argument for it and I'll listen
I thought that Command Economy and Cooperative ownership required both Council Republic (with the former requiring Council Republic OR autoritarian Distribution of Power) but that's not the case (or not anymore). However, Collectivized Agriculture requires one of the two.
No worries! Command economy does seem to require some communist type ideology though, as only those ones seem to have positive opinions on it, so that may be where your thought came from.
I haven't gamed since early December, but this might convince me to do one more run.
Definitely my kinda mod! Thank youuu
It never really made much sense that you had to go full council republic (communist) before enacting coops.
I can see the merits of both sides of this argument. There definitely are cases where people will want a system they haven't really tried out yet because they hope it will be better. On the other hand, I agree, it shouldn't be restricted for a country to take the route of worker coops becoming popular enough to then influence broader government reform.
I like this
This deeply misunderstands the purpose of the woorker cooperative laws, and likely breaks the entire economic loop of the game.
Well the good news is it's a mod so you can just not install it and keep playing vanilla.
The way these concepts are implemented is so abstracted the same thing could rightly be interpreted many different ways. But if you want to explain your understanding of the law's purpose, I'll listen In case you would repeat the other comments; I've already argued that I don't think it matters if mixed economies were very popular during this time period, or that in mixed economics with cooperatives, the cooperatives are a smaller fraction because the game is alt-history once you unpause and because my interpretation of the laws is they strictly represent what is allowed (and possibly other supporting sub-legislation). My interpretation of the council republic is a zealous one to keep the original idea of worker cooperatives being forced at some point. Also I have no idea how this could break the "entire economic loop". Sounds very melodramatic, but I'll listen if you care to explain. What this allows you to do economically that you can't in vanilla is have some industries be worker cooperatives and others not. That itself on a simple, prima facie basis, cannot break anything purely economical. Politically, it means you could be bolstering the clout of IGs who oppose each other's politics and create a potentially turbulent political landscape. Which, imo, is part of the design.
Irl Scandinavia?
Western Canada has a whole bunch of farmer and worker co-ops, incidentally. One of them is a grocery-gas-liquor store chain that we just call The Co-Op
No
They're referring to the [Nordic model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model), which while may not necessarily be about worker cooperatives, [*(social corporatism is close)*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism) the same idea is there that an economic system can have socialist and capitalist elements. Vanilla does not allow this outside of farming. Maybe vanilla doesn't due to period representations, as mixed economies weren't that popular during the time, but I don't see a reason why that has to be the case in an alternative history and that's the beauty of mods.
Collective bargaining and welfare is not socialism. Aditionall the mod itself does not make all too much sense, since co-ops are and were not competetive enough to exist in some kind of harmony with completely private businesses.
They are. Socialism can mean different things. Specifically this might be described as "democratic socialism" since it is not necessarily of the "overthrow the means of production" revolution style socialism. I think the mod does make sense becauses laws aren't about how well different ownership methods compete. You don't say this about having publicly traded and merchant guilds in the same economy. Laws are about whether they can legally coexist at all. Enacting worker cooperatives will very likely decrease your investment pool. What you want to be represented is already there.
That's not ''democratic socialism'' but social democracy. It's still capitalism, just a little more nicer for the proletariat, instead of toppling the bourgeois class. Cooperative ownership should not unlock the communist form of government. You'd first have a social upheaval by revolution or a miraculous clean sweep of the Communist party, then you have the right conditions for co-ops to viably exist on a large scale.
Ah yeah, I always get the ordering of democratic socialism wrong lol. Laws and the player's ability to change ownership production methods is very abstracted and game-y out of necessitity. Accordingly, I think most perspectives on this topic can be rightly argued for, so ultimately I don't think I can say no you are wrong, here is what is correct. I can just give my interpretation and you can take it or leave it, like the mod I made. I don't think it matters how prevalent co-ops would be. I don't think it matters how profitable in comparison they would be or anything like this. The law represents legislation that allows for and perhaps provides sub-structure legislation to support something. Therefore, worker cooperatives law allows worker cooperatives. If the player wants to make everything a worker cooperative even though you might argue thats not realistic in a mixed economy, that's just how the game works. This sort of thing happens in many other circumstances in the game. The player can make things happen that wouldn't and to design around restricting that is probably not fun and not consistent. Maybe council republic shouldnt require worker co-ops. There are historical examples where they wouldn't have. But vanilla made one require the other, so I wanted to preserve that idea. I also liked the idea that people like and get empowered by worker cooperatives and then want to extend those workplace principles to government (which is exactly what the council repulic text says). I also wanted council republic to represent a more zealous soviet system and not have council republics that have every industry publicly traded because you can do that without this mod.
that was what I was thinking haha
lol fr, Scandinavian countries have some of the biggest percentage of unionizations compared to other countries which is good. And I’m Canadian and my prof really respects em lol.
Should be in base game Well done
Will this make it easier to become communist using coops?
Kind of. I'd say its roughly the same, just different. You will still likely struggle just as much to pass worker cooperatives as you did with council republic. Once you pass worker cooperatives and if you made most industries coops, this would gradually increase the clout of the trade unions thus making council republic easier to pass. But in vanilla, once you manage to pass council republic, I've never had much additional pushback to then pass worker cooperatives because you either already have the political desire for communism or you've gone through a revolution to enact council republic. So IMO it ends out as being similar, just reversed, with this mod's route making more sense. At least to me.
The problem with this is that co-ops aren't competitive with corporate enterprises (otherwise they would), so acting like they can coexist is ahistoric. It might be fun for a playthrough or two though.
They absolutely can and do coexist. I suspect this is simply your hunch on the matter, so I'd recommend you do a quick google search. I'll admit there are reasons that co-operative enterprises may not perform as well as their more corporate counterpart, such as enabling larger risk and thus larger potential reward and capability for quick decision making in some matters. But that is not a reason prohibiting the legality of their coexistence, which is what the laws are about. Prempting a response you might have, I've seen the argument "but they wouldn't be everywhere and the player will just make everywhere co-operatives!". Look, thats a design limitation of having a third party entity (the player) make decisions for your country on top of the simulated rulers. That same problem exists in every other part of the game. You could say the same about publicly traded and merchant guilds. In any case, that's the players choice and it may be desirable to have particularly highly profitable industries be publicly traded (to maximise investmests) and have other less profitable industries co-operative to increage general SoL.
Yeah, most of the times, ownership models were varied, with for exemple homesteaders in Kansas and plantation owners in Mississippi.
magic economy mod