You can’t just say it’s a misunderstanding of the four terms and then not present any argument to the contrary. What am I supposed to do? Provide you the historical context of Liberalism emerging during a time of increasing trade and promoted by people working explicitly for the large merchants and bankers? Or provide you the historical context of how Conservatism emerged as a response to Liberalism in defense of monarchy? Like, I have no idea how ignorant or knowledgeable you are on this topic, only that you think I misunderstand. Give me something.

Liberalism also fought in favor of universal liberation.

It absolutely did not. John Locke was a major shareholder in the Royal Africa Company, the slave trading monopoly of England. He wrote the constitution for the colony of Carolina, and explicitly wrote that every “freeman” would have total control over his “negro slaves”. Does that sound like the father of Liberalism fighting for universal liberation? No. It does not.

Not understanding that or how liberalism lead to conversations for socialism is a glaring hole in one’s historical understanding.

So now you’re moving the goal posts to “liberalism led to conversationa for socialism”? You think I don’t understand the history of philosophy and how we build on what came before? You know what led to conversations about abolition? Slavery. Slavery itself brought about conversations of abolition. Would you say that the institution of slavery is somehow the progenitor of the abolition movement? No. You would not.

The conversation about socialism emerged because of the failure of Liberalism to actually achieve its lofty rhetoric. And when analyzed materially, it was shown that Liberalism cannot lead to universal liberation because of it’s fundamental attachment of private property and thus it is inescapable from capitalism. This is not only theory. It was theory used to explain why Liberalism was sold the masses on universal liberation and near-utopia promises and yet a century or more of Liberalism resulted in prolonged horrible terrible conditions for the vast majority of people.

Either both Liberalism and Communism fight/have fought for universal liberation or, following your logic, Communism fights for a specific system structure as well because “universal liberation” actually doesn’t mean anything you could define.

This is ridiculous. Like straight ridiculous. I have to imagine you’re having an emotional reaction where you feel like I am insulting or attacking you because I cannot understand how you can write these words with a clear head.

You’re saying that because I don’t think Liberalism was structured on universal liberation because it privileged white male Christian land-owning Europeans and everyone else was either genocided, enslaved, or left to suffer and die of neglect and poverty, that somehow this means Communism is not fighting for universal liberation? Like, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

How do we know Conmunism is for universal liberation? Because it analyzed the failures of liberation, identified a root cause for the failure (class society) and then developed a theory to eliminate class society, and then executed it. Because when communists overthrow liberals they immediately set to work addressing mass poverty and eliminate the majority of it within 10 - 30 years. Because they developed the theories of national self-determination that the entire world now uses as a framework against settler colonialism. Because Communist theory explicitly states that a society built on limited liberation is doomed to fail as the contradiction between classes sharpens until there is a collapse and communists movements never set out to build a society that they know will collapse eventually.

With that in mind it probably would read more like, Communism fights for Authoritarianism.

This more than anything makes me think you have no idea of Liberal history. During the first 100 years of any liberal society they were constantly crushing workers rebellions with their military. The Americans, the English, the French, all had Liberal revolutions and then spent a century repressing their working population to force them work under intolerable conditions. Honestly, it wasn’t until the Bolsheviks were successful that progressive Liberalism really started to take root because suddenly all the Liberal robber barons were afraid that the workers would actually try to win.

Communism demands extreme power towards a central point, it relies extensively on what you’d call the state having the first and final say in things.

Yup. That’s how a democracy would be run if it were designed to enforce universal liberation instead of allowing robber barons to hire private police to beat striking workers to death. The central point is required for democracy to actually have an effect at the national level and the first and final say is required to override special interests.

But historically stacking all that power in the center begins to circle back towards monarchism maybe without a hereditary line but still you’re handing all power to a single political entity and that’s some heavy Authoritarianism.

Ok, jackass, now I’m upset. You think I don’t understand political philosophy terms but you’re going to sit here and say that communism trends toward monarchism? Are you high? Could you read fucking book on the topic before running your fucking mouth? Christ why do I even bother to assume you people are arguing in good faith.

Fuck off until you read something.