Why is it said that we must combat liberalism?
In the West, the regions in which a Liberal or Democratic party is deceptively considered “leftist,” is it not beneficial to support any group that claims to work against the so-called “right-wing” groups? Of course not!
Liberals know only to vocally complain—to voice their “intense anger” by raising signs at state-sanctioned parades marketed as protests, then pat themselves on the back for feeling as if they have done something.
Yet they wholly refuse to make any contributions to any material revolution, let alone a socialist one. At the end of the day, they wish for the status quo to remain unchanged.
This is why we say that liberals and conservatives are the same.1 Both uphold imperialism and allow for the continuation of capitalist exploitation, so long as the one waging these wars fits their “diverse” criteria. So long as it is a Black woman committing genocide in Palestine and not a white man, they will turn a blind eye!
They do not care for internationalism, nor the struggle of those exploited workers in the Global South. To them, only they themselves matter.
“No Kings”: Optics, adrenaline, and the feeling of having done something
Many have voiced concerns regarding the recent “No Kings” protests across Imperialist America. BettBeat Media writes of the newest wave:
Do you know what was happening while Bruce Springsteen played his new single in Minnesota? Do you know what was happening while a woman in Los Angeles wore a blow-up flamingo and told a reporter that the protest was an “opportunity to make a statement and respond with silliness to the silliness the administration is doing?”
Silliness.
One hundred and seventy-five schoolgirls in Minab were dying. Thousands of Iranians were dying. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian innocents were dying. That is what was happening.
Silliness.
It is the perfect word — not for what happened to the victims, but for what the West chose to do instead. Dancing, waving flags, squeezing into costumes — this is what passes for protest when the protest is designed never to threaten the thing it claims to oppose.
“No Kings” does not care about the Trump administration. These so-called “protests” are merely meant for optics—news networks have described them as perhaps “the largest day of demonstrations in the nation’s history.” This is why liberals oppose ICE: an imperialist form of oppression turned inward. They attend for the adrenaline and the mere feeling that they have “done something,” regardless of its effect (or lack thereof).
Does this matter at all when no material change is caused? Will Imperialist America immediately stop interfering in other countries’ affairs because some white liberals showed up to the streets in Halloween outfits?
Frankly, the liberals do not even truly care for their own immigrants or People of Colour—only that these deportations inconvenience them. They want peace, but only for themselves. They could not care less for the genocides in Palestine or in the Congo. These are “far away” issues that they “can do nothing about” and can ignore whenever they desire. Are the Palestinians and Iranians being actively bombed able to simply “tune out” the horrors of Imperialist America’s wars as the Americans are?
The lack of attention on foreign policy is also seen rather clearly in the “No Kings” movement’s own views as well. Robert Inlakesh of The Palestine Chronicle writes:
On the No Kings official website, there was notably no mention of Donald Trump’s pro-war policies, including his continuation of the Gaza genocide, attack on Iran that was opposed by the overwhelming majority of the American public, and his continued friendship with Israel.
While some commentators defended No Kings for their relative silence on such issues, arguing that it is a protest movement focused primarily on domestic issues, such as ICE raids, creeping authoritarianism, and funding cuts to federal programs, the No Kings website itself does make mention of foreign protest movements.
For example, the website urged demonstrators to wear Yellow. “Throughout history, people who have come together in protest against authoritarian regimes have utilized a color that is easy to see among a sea of thousands,” it states.
It then goes on to cite the anti-China protests in Hong Kong, where demonstrators used yellow umbrellas and yellow ribbons used to represent resistance to Russia in Ukraine, as its two specific examples to align the movement with. Both of these examples are in line with the US foreign policy interests shared between the Democratic and Republican parties. In the case of the Hong Kong protests, in both 2014 and 2019, the US government was accused of directly interfering and helping to direct the demonstrations, especially through its CIA-linked soft-power projects like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
He continues:
When reading more into Levin’s views, it is clear that the line he adopts is very similar to that of Indivisible, in that it unequivocally condemns the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attack, labeling Israel’s attacks on Gaza as a response, while also assuming the position that Israel has gone too far and committed war crimes. While this view often tries to equivocate between the violence of Palestinians under occupation and Israel, it is still in line with the more progressive strain of thinking associated with Democratic Party members.
[At] one of the protest locations itself, some of the pro-Democratic Party voices began making scenes over anti-war activists attending with Palestinian flags. Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK was even approached by a woman who attempted to force attendants of the No Kings demonstration holding Palestinian flags to leave, stating, “You are in the wrong place”.
Liberalism as a manifestation of opportunism
Chairman Mao Tse-tung referred to liberalism as a “manifestation of opportunism,” one that “conflicts fundamentally with Marxism.” This performative opportunism is seen most notably in the inconsistent, fluctuating support for Palestine within liberal circles. The settlers in Imperialist America feel as if they have the moral authority to condemn Hamas or the Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, despite both contributing much more concretely to the Palestinian cause than these liberals themselves.
It is also seen in the rhetoric of “social democrats” and “democratic socialists” who “condemn both sides” of imperialist conflicts, using so-called “nuance” to validate their empty words. Their actions are inherently insufficient and reactionary. Worse are the voters who praise their words uncritically, offering blind support regardless of contradictions. This is why we reject liberalism.
It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.
All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.
The only difference between them in my view is that while conservatives want to keep the status quo, liberals criticize everyone through “both sides” rhetoric, effectively coming to the conclusion that they should do nothing. It is, in essence, a more convoluted way of coming to the same conclusion.
Until there is a severe increase in class consciousness and acknowledgement of the duopoly serving only capitalist interests, my fear is that we are doomed with status quo.
The only real effect that all of these liberal parades and statements with no action is that it shows people that the liberals are nothing but a waste of human energy. There is no possibly of change through liberalism and its Democratic Party. The "left-wing" social democratic parties of the fascist, Democratic Party are also showing that they do not care about the Palestinian cause. In fact, their promises and statements about supporting Palestine, rejecting the Zionist regime's "right to exist" and combatting fascism at home have not been merely empty, but rather, contradictory! Their own conscious actions of betrayal to the working class on matters of actual genocide and state violence is what makes them enemies to revolutionary movements; they *choose* to do the bidding of imperialism, so why should we not welcome these opportunists as we do fascists, colonizers, and the capitalist class itself?