Among us, there are some who wear our very skin, claiming to be anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, and Marxist-Leninist while simultaneously participating in so-called “both-sides-ism” and condemning all parties involved in a particular conflict, regardless of contradictions.
These individuals are not what they claim, but reactionaries who—knowingly or not—suppress active material revolutions while acting against the ultimate goal of a global socialist revolution.
Beware the reactionary forces
The reactionary forces often participate in identity politics, weaponizing their socially-constructed demographic identities to dismiss alternative views. This was seen most recently with the Iranian diaspora, who cheered on the bombing of their own homeland. They find their audience in, most commonly, wealthy white liberals who fear the loss of Western hegemony, and “baby leftists,” who are easily led astray.
These individuals are, ultimately, the counter-revolutionary forces’ greatest tool. They are the ruling class’ unsuspecting weapon and more dangerous to the revolutionary Cause than any bourgeois force.
The reactionaries pacify and suppress revolutionary speech, “letting out steam” and “fighting for justice” through peaceful, non-violent action. The reactionaries’ protests are state-sanctioned, and the organizers work directly with State thugs to “ensure everyone remains peaceful.” If the State allows you to protest, it does not fear you.
Western reactionaries are the worst of all. These reactionaries feel as if they have the moral authority to condemn Russia, China, the DPRK, Iran, and other so-called “regimes” when they have yet to revolt against their own regimes.
While the Western reactionaries may, on occasion, disagree with their governments’ actions, they uncritically accept anything said about these so-called “regimes” in the East.
The American “leftist” reactionaries, for instance, have failed to meaningfully act against their government’s history of waging unjust war, which makes up most of their State’s history.
The very terms of “regime” and “authoritarian dictatorship” have also been instrumentalized by the West; they have attached a social meaning to induce certain chains of thought. A regime simply refers to a government, and all States are authoritarian dictatorships.
Through Marx and through Lenin, we are able to differentiate between a dictatorship of capital and the bourgeoisie and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Authoritarianism, similarly, is a tool wielded by all States through police and the military, through law and institutions, etc.
The sheer idiocy of condemning “both sides”
A clear case of this “both sides” condemnation can be seen today with Iran. Some reactionaries, including so-called “de-colonialist” academics and social democrats, have “condemned both sides” of the conflict. They claim to support Palestine and Sudan and have called for an end to the genocides, yet for some reason, they have chosen to condemn Iran as well. This won’t do!
To condemn an anti-imperialist state that is actively improving the Global South and other oppressed peoples’ material conditions is to condemn internationalism itself. This is akin to tying a weight around your ankle before running from a predator. Iran has done more for Palestine and Sudan than any “nonviolent protest” ever could.
Some reactionaries claim to be anti-Zionist, yet support the so-called “two-state solution,” which is a slap in the face to Palestinian sovereignty, self-determination, and self-governance. Rather than a return to an era before the Nakba, when Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together in peace, they have authorized the continued ethnic cleansing in occupied Palestine. Even the genocidal colonizer Netanyahu himself knows this so-called “solution” will lead nowhere.
Many of these reactionaries who support the “two-state solution” also condemn Hamas despite the fact that:
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has explicitly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israel’s military occupation, including through armed struggle. This right was affirmed in the context of the right to self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule. (via CJPME)
Reactionaries often support Ukraine as well, seeing the conflict on the surface level as “a small State being attacked by a larger one,” wholly ignoring the US-backed coup of 2014; the suppression of ethnic Russians and the Russian language since the start of the conflict; the ongoing Nazi problem (e.g., neo-Nazis in the military, commemorative statues featuring Nazis, and the erasure of Soviet GPW/WWII history); and Zelenskiy’s support for “Israel,” including his suggestion for Ukraine to become a “big Israel.”
No investigation, no right to speak
While some reactionaries purposely mislead our comrades, others believe all they hear as absolute truth without considering contradictions, further disseminating misinformation.
I urge these reactionaries and young leftists to learn not only from the news and current events but also, simultaneously, from theory and history. Any claims made must come from concrete investigation—the consideration of past and present, theory and practice. As Chairman Mao wrote:
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak?
"Neither-sideism" is worse than the worst possible attitude because it involves wearing the mask of "neutrality".
“Neutrality” is one of the most persuasive illusions of modern political language. It presents itself not as a position among others, but as a space outside all positions. Yet this “outside” is often nothing more than the most refined form of an already embedded power structure.
Özcan Buze
Neutrality as the Invisible Ideology of the Modern Order
Neutrality is not the absence of power—it is the most effective way power hides itself. It defines what can be seen, what can be said, and what can be ignored.
Özcan Buze
May 01, 2026
View stats in the app
3
1
Introduction: The Anatomy of the Claim to Neutrality
“Neutrality” is one of the most persuasive illusions of modern political language. It presents itself not as a position among others, but as a space outside all positions. Yet this “outside” is often nothing more than the most refined form of an already embedded power structure.
At first glance, "neutrality" appears to signify a stance above conflict. But a closer look reveals something different: it is a framing mechanism that determines how conflict itself becomes visible, intelligible, and legitimate. Once this frame is in place, what counts as a legitimate actor, a valid question, or an acceptable reality is already partially decided.
The issue, then, is not whether "neutrality" exists, but how it is produced. In most cases, neutrality is not an ethical stance; it is a narrative technology—one that allows power relations to operate without naming themselves.
This disgusting paradigm was at its most obvious in Syria with "influencers" celebrating "liberation" for the people even as murder and ethnic cleansing was happening for all to see. It's there to be seen anyplace that Empire has stuck it's meddling conniving fingers into but was so blatantly obvious in real time there too that I couldn't fathom how they had the absolute tRumpian audacity to pontificate on who had a right to an opinion if it contradicted theirs. Supposedly leftists have no problem talking about regimes and liberation without seeing the oxymoron that concept creates in real time and the colonial mindset it typifies along with the white supremacy it tries to force down the throats of cultures which have existed for millennia. The narcissism is mind bending.