The liberal ideology was a product of the shifting class structure with the advent of industrialisation. The emerging capitalist class wanted to wrest itself free from the tyranny of the feudal and monarchist structures that were dominant at those times. At that point, liberalism was a revolutionary force towards restructuring of classes, but now that capitalism is the dominant ideology it is a reactionary force.

Progressivism is not an inherent part of liberalism. Progressivism as we see in mainstream discourse is a product of the combination of oppressed minorities having fought to secure rights for themselves and some sections of the ruling class trying to capitalise on their momentum to gain an upper hand their inter-bourgeoisie conflicts.

I see true liberalism every day: people discuss progressive ideas all the time, and are very tolerant of each other.

On what basis are you calling it true liberalism? Progenitors of the liberal ideology were very adamant that it was their right to own slaves.

Tolerance can be and has been engendered without liberalism. Women has much better rights in the USSR compared to the United States at the same despite patriarchy still being dominant. More women were educated and working.

liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, only in america is it a synonym for “left” because america has no left.

Liberalism has a specific, well established ideological definition. It sells itself as progressive and it was coming from feudalism but is now a regressive force. Combat liberalism.

As others have pointed out (but it bears repeating), the distinction between idealism and materialism is fundamental. Essentially, idealists believe that ideas are the driving force of history. That the world we live in is shaped by our thoughts. On the other hand, materialists believe that history is a process of change in the material conditions, and that our thoughts are simply a reflection of these conditions.

Why is this important? Well, Liberalism is an idealistic framework. It starts with notions like republican democracy, rule of law, free markets, civil liberties, property rights, etc. and assumes that if enough people embrace these ideas, the conditions of the world will change to reflect them. However, a careful enough reading of history would indicate that in the past two and a half centuries since the “Enlightenment,” this has never been the case. Powerful liberal institutions such as the legislatures, the courts, public executives, the press, and the armed forces they assemble to preserve their power have always served as perpetrators, enablers and apologists for the state’s most heinous atrocities.

As materialists, we don’t look to these institutions and “great men” to deliver us to the promised land. We see these institutions as an outgrowth of the underlying material conditions and social relations. Further, we see the whole canon of Liberal philosophy as an outgrowth of the ascendent Bourgeois class’s triumph over feudal monarchy. The limited opening of civil liberties and indirect democracy suited them just fine, as their wealth and power was based in commodity production rather than direct subordination of peasants by their lords. The introduction of legislatures and due process was a benefit to this new class of Capitalists as well, by creating a regulatory board which the class could use to limit the action of individuals from leading to their collective destruction.

As materialists, and as Marxists in particular, we see class struggle as the primary contradiction in society and the driving force of history. We do not think communism can be achieved by rhetoric, but by action. Not by convincing the oppressors to treat the oppressed more nicely, but by attacking the material basis which makes systemic inequity possible in the first place. This often puts us at odds with the hegemonic Liberal institutions which exist to carefully curate the status quo, defending capital accumulation and private property above all else.

There are some good things which have come out of Liberalism, as Liberalism was a progressive force in its time (things like The Declaration of The Rights of Man and the Citizen, and Civil Disobedience come to mind). But that time is long past. Liberalism has completely transformed the world, and there is nothing more we can get out of it by doing more Liberalism. We are straining the limits of proletarianization and capital accumulation, and any ideological framework which centers individual liberty above collective wellbeing is woefully inadequate to deal with the situation.

Individualist ideologies have no place in communism.

Not even gonna bother with why liberalism is garbage, since others have already done so.

But this idea of “rescuing words”, “we can’t allow them to take (label) from us!” is nonsense, and will always sound as ridiculous as “let’s take back the swastika! We can’t allow the nazis to ruin it!” Symbols are meaningless for the most part.

If you’re talking about a specific party in your country - then I’m aware many places have outlawed communist party of (country), worker’s party of (country). That is a shame, and if a genuinely good party resorts to calling itself a liberal one, we shouldn’t discard them. Yet we don’t have to cry tears for the word liberal. Those parties, either they’d call themselves communists if they could, or they’re misguided.

You’re the one who’s using the american definition of “liberal” as the progressive side of a conservative or liberal dichotomy, but like many pointed here, liberal also has a materialist historical definition and was a progressive force in the past but now it’s a reactionary ideology that seeks to defend capitalist institutions and offer only symbolic and hyper-individualistic “solutions” to social problems (it mainly does that in order to coopt social anxieties and protect the system) our world view and political doctrine is a complete rupture of liberal ideology and we seek to end those institutions that were historically formed (liberal democracy, private property, market economy, the bourgeois capitalist press, liberal economic “freedom”). Stop saying we’re the extension of liberalism, you almost sound like fucking Vaush, and we don’t want to retorically present ourselves as the extension of liberalism either because we want to completely disrupt the liberal world view, not build a bridge while slowly progressing foward on their failed institutions. i’ll leave here an infographic from leftypol i found on gzd, i’s not perfect and looks a little class reductionist but it might help.

Because “liberal” comes from “libre marché”, more than “libertine”, since we talk about politics, not personal inclinations regarding traditions.

And no, liberal is not the semantic opposite of “authoritarian”, since “authoritarian” is a meaningless buzzword therm.