Liberalism is an ideology supporting private property and individualism. Communism doesn’t have a state, but it does have administration, which some consider government, and communism lacks private property.
Private property in the sense the government can’t seize your home or car or rollerskates without due process. It is not the main caveat of liberalism, which is pro liberty, aka pro human rights. It is an ideology independent of economic system
Can the administration control what the commune does? Laws? Policing?
If so then given time the people who seek it will elevate that position.
Public ownership under communism doesn’t mean the government (or administration to use your term without a difference) owns it. It means the population has control over whether it is helping (keep) or hurting (remove) society. And the workers are at the forefront of that not politicians or owners.
You’re aware that liberalism views landowners as a scourge of society because they make money without adding anything to the world but you cannot view said viewpoint from a communist perspective.
I’ll give you another crazy idea; political parties/governments are corporations. They will put their own survival above that of the people they represent.
In what manner are communists “liberals?” Why are communists capitalists in your eyes?
Liberalism isn’t a capitalist ideology
Yes it is. It centers private property and invidividualism.
See you don’t know what the term liberal means.
It has nothing to do with capitalism.
Communism doesn’t have a government, that makes them liberals.
Liberalism is an ideology supporting private property and individualism. Communism doesn’t have a state, but it does have administration, which some consider government, and communism lacks private property.
Private property in the sense the government can’t seize your home or car or rollerskates without due process. It is not the main caveat of liberalism, which is pro liberty, aka pro human rights. It is an ideology independent of economic system
No, this is entirely wrong and is completely unsupported by historical context.
If you have an administration then you create a class struggle that will lead to oppression.
You have private property because the state (public) doesn’t own it, the people do. (That’s private since you seem confused)
No, administration isn’t class, and ownership is collectivized rather than individual. This is very basic.
Can the administration control what the commune does? Laws? Policing?
If so then given time the people who seek it will elevate that position.
Public ownership under communism doesn’t mean the government (or administration to use your term without a difference) owns it. It means the population has control over whether it is helping (keep) or hurting (remove) society. And the workers are at the forefront of that not politicians or owners.
You’re aware that liberalism views landowners as a scourge of society because they make money without adding anything to the world but you cannot view said viewpoint from a communist perspective.
I’ll give you another crazy idea; political parties/governments are corporations. They will put their own survival above that of the people they represent.
None of this is correct, and further communism is not communalism.
Liberal is when no government…
Yes but it’s a range. The more liberal, the less power government has until it doesn’t exist.
At least in the political sense of the word.
You’re in .ml my guy it’s not possible to argue with these guys they are marx magas