Mhmm maybe you’re right. But what I’m trying to say that the fact people think and argue for and against it in a very ideological way makes it somehow ideology

Not really, they clam it is an ideology, when in reality, it has extremely little to back it as an ideology.

it’s not a sound argument I get it. But Socialism and Communism both are economic models and ideology.

for instance

Maybe saying “neoliberalism” is a better way to suit that ideology

Yet the argument for neoliberalism is the capitalist model itself.

Wouldn’t you somehow agree?

Nope, because neoliberalism is an ideology that primarily uses capitalism.

That goes for 99% of liberals and conservatives.

I don’t get that but I think I get your point

generally

but then Socialism would be an ideology, and say democratic centralism just a model

Democratic centralism? Never heard that one before.

Yes, socialism would be an ideology.

Democratic Centralism is the model of the Soviet Union, or at least how it was supposed to happen

"How it was supposed to happen"

Yhea, let's be serious for a moment, the soviet union was neither democratic, nor was it centralist.

I’ll answer this later I’m walking

The SU was definitely centralist, too centralist imo. And while it was, always in my opinion, politically un democratic (sometimes), it showed freedoms in the workplace and organization of life that we have never seen before, except in other Leninist and or Anarchist experiments

I think that’s pretty undeniable

gang gang

Bring back

Council communism

aka Soviet Communism

@yung Mis-spoke when I said it wasn't centralist, was thinking of something else....

And what freedoms were those?

having control over your work.

you know like, workers control? The whole point of Socialism?

@yung And what do you mean by "control over your work"?

Coordination over how one handles his/her own work

@yung Um what? You mean the instructions on how one handles the stuff they create? That is extremely specific pal.

That’s a part of it. I’m talking about the abolition of private property in favor of common ownership over work. The way you work is entirely dependent on the case of course

@yung The common didn't own everything though, the state ultimately did in the end.

because the common was the state. Even though it wasn’t direct control it was at the very least representative

So the common is another word for the state under your definiton.... I will take note of that.

Well yes, that’s how it is supposed to work. I’m not denying in time this changed drastically

during war time especially

The ansyns would argue that the common are actually the factory workers and unions that participated in creating those goods.

What would you say to that?

And if the ultimate goal of communism is to abolish the state, dosen't that mean you would be abolishing the common?

The state is an apparatus by which the common makes decisions about anything that is of importance to the common

Then why does the state enforce brutal quota's on the common?