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
Yes, and all are equal, but some more equal. Particularly, anyone that was part of the administration of the soviet union was more equal than anyone not close to the administration.
Communism has never been about “equalitarianism.” Communism is about suiting the needs of all with everyone’s productive capacity, not trying to make sure everyone has the same thing. Over time things will trend towards more evenness, but fundamental characreristic differences in ability will still remain, differences in need, etc.
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.
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.
Yes, and all are equal, but some more equal. Particularly, anyone that was part of the administration of the soviet union was more equal than anyone not close to the administration.
Administration needs to be humanless.
Communism has never been about “equalitarianism.” Communism is about suiting the needs of all with everyone’s productive capacity, not trying to make sure everyone has the same thing. Over time things will trend towards more evenness, but fundamental characreristic differences in ability will still remain, differences in need, etc.
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.