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.

I find it important to use labels correctly, or else just never use labels at all

well i mean this is partially just comes down to how one views the nature of power

If you don;t believe in some sort of base line set of things we can all agree about, then all you are doing is engaging in Foucautlian discourse and there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers anyway...

Or rather that jsut are

wat

regardless of weather everyone believes in them

You're rambling, I do accept the ideologies as they are defined

I'm calling you an unselfware SJW basically

i mean i think that if the state is just to be defined as a monopoly on violence within a given territory it's more or less "natural" within the context of post agricultural-revolution societies

No you're simply wrong about me, stop assuming things

Do you believe in objective reality?

Yeah obviously

Do you believe that there could be an objective morality derived from said reality?

No

Then I'm almost certainly correct

About what

you

What

don't worrt

Ok, nothing