For believing in a different economic/political system. Hence my use of “political opponents”.

What pisses me off the most is the lying cunt Timmermans and his buddies calling BJ demagogue, and then adding "Britain should fulfill the deal they agreed to" with second breath.

It's only a difference if you believe in Liberalism @ETBrooD

as if the parliament has no say on whether Britain agrees to something

Because you just used Liberal reasoning to justify it

If you kill someone for their political beliefs, then you're a murderer, and in that moment you're acting politically, so you're an authoritarian. Not just a regular murderer.

'organisms defend themselves'
what politically charged reasoning!

totalitarianism is about the formalized incorporation of the organs comprising society into the state apparatus

Hence why AntiFa could be considered totalitarian

>Aka the anti-facist communist party.

there we go only took 8 minutes for that to show up

anarchists are by definition opposed to it

Indeed they are

Not a single anarchist can be found in AntiFa

You can also say that human life cannot be taken away unless for a divinley mandated reason to do with the Decalogue. The point is the way YOU justified the self defense is Liberal. I'm not saying that self defense is bad, I'm saying that your way of justifying is Liberal, so criticizing others for potentially not agreeing with you on that is just accusing them of not being Liberal, which in this context is just assuming your conclusion, as you started the argument as one against some other ideology...

So funny how history is repeating itself...

We're watching history unfold in-itself.

Why do you think the left is attacking so hard now.

pretty sure anarcho-communists are pretty common in antifa

Yeah but by name only

Their actions tell us they're just communists, or something along those lines

Only after the revolution phase and the system has been enforced, before that a communist revolution would function like a state. It might be a chaotic state, but it’s still would be a state at this stage.

(I would also like to remind everyone that Liberalism started with revolutions as well. The French Terror was a thing...)

No, actually it'd just be accusing them of not holding a value that exists within the greater universe of liberal values

The value in question is not itself inherently liberal

Nothing is "inherently liberal", we have to define things first, thus they're subjective

We define humans as the ingroup, it's the basis for liberal values

It's not inherently Liberal, the reasoning you deployed to get to justify the value is Liberal.

function like a state how

So you are ASSUMING your own ideological framework

So it's a non-argument to anyone who doesn't share it

Every ideology was defined by people, thus they're all subjective

They're ideologies, not objective facts

So obviously it's assumed to be xyz, that's the point

I think there is some major disconnect here

If you want to tell a communist, that doing x is wrong, and you use Liberal arguments to do so, u are OBVIOUSLY not going to succeed unless you find some commonality with him is my point.

The reasoning was:
'killing can be for a valid reason or not'

Off of which was based,
'I find that killing someone due to a belief is not a valid reason'

It's a pointless exercise

Pointless or not, the ideology has been defined, so we can label them properly

You might as well just use violence against them immediately, as this is never gonna work

Whether they agree or not doesn't matter

Monopoly of violence sense. One organization would have a monopoly on punishment for criminals and how they’re defined and military affairs in their territory. Even if communist groups organized into a loose confederation it would still be considered a state or multiple states at this point.