Have you ever bothered to read the rules of your instance? If I go on there and say anything negative about your cute dictator I’ll be banned. However, you can freely go on our greedy capitalist instances and praise your teddy bear as much as you want. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I guess your mind can’t comprehend being free.

Look at the defed list for starters

You were called a liberal because of your support of liberal governments, making it related to the topic. The holier-than-thou tone of your response highlights your lack of education on the relevant topics. Seeing as you think no one else provided any value to the discussion and you knowingly chose to contribute nothing of your own (is coat-tail time vampire an established term?) Let’s try to salvage something out of this thread. Beyond the derisive tone of this first paragraph, everything beyond is provided as a measure toward engaging in a good-faith conversation.

Why were you called a liberal and why would a communist see this as a fault? To add some clarity before the quote, communists usually apply the term “liberal” to what people in the US refer to as “conservatives” and “liberals.” They are lumped together due to their mutual support of liberalism and neoliberalism. The following quote is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Section 2.4. It does not fully answer the above question, but it will begin to give some context. Any additional clarification can be gained by reading further into Marxist theory.

In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation—essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties—and human emancipation. Marx’s reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore, liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility—for Marx, the fact—that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of liberal rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of feudalism and religious prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the ideas of non-alienated labour and meaningful community.

The irony of calling me a troll while at the same time dismissing a study you haven’t read to attack my character. Please keep your word and stick to just one low effort reply here, I don’t think anyone needs to read you embarrass yourself any further.