unfreeradical

There is nothing communist about that.

Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.

He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.

Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.

Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.

The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.

You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.

Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.

Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.

This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.

I suppose he must be very frugal with household expenses.

Hospitals want other employers to provide health coverage.

Honestly, if you are establishing the community as anti-tankie, then the rule against sectarianism would seem meaningless, indeed misleading, and almost sophistic.

I suggest simply declaring outright the sectarian commitments of the community, as long as your enforcement will lead to such an effect in practice.

They already caused two worlds wars, a depression between them, the climate crisis, and settler-colonial genocide.

What is the reason for such a distinction being constructed and becoming entrenched?

Who determines such processes, and who benefits?