Liberals as potential allies?

[CAleftist]

I've heard some people say that liberals could be allies in a Revolution.

What do you think? I tend to doubt this, because many liberals are bourgeoisie who wish to preserve their own power, who do all they can to suppress the Left, and who benefit a lot from the exploitation of workers that is inherent in Capitalism.

[Imposter Marxist]

Liberals are typically very arrogant, first of all. They seem themselves as the "Rational" and "Obvious" belief. They think Republicans and the rest of the right are crazy, and the left is too extreme. They are our enemies as a movement. Liberals would show their true colors very quickly in a revolutionary situation by backing the state.

Just because they want to put restrictions on capitalism doesn't mean they want to destroy it. Just because they have a few policies we enjoy (Abortion, gay rights), doesn't mean they don't have a lot we hate. (Gun Control, Imperialist policies.)

[Vendetta]

If history teaches us anything...probably not.

Nowadays, they'll just cover the revolution with a comedic news team.

[Queercommie Girl]

Read the Communist Manifesto.

Right-wing liberals are always reactionary, but left-wing liberals are partly progressive. They are what is referred to as petit-bourgeois socialism. Of all the different types of reactionary socialisms listed by Marx, it is probably still the least reactionary. In fact, I'd say it's generally better to ally with representatives of petit-bourgeois socialism than it is to ally with representatives of semi-feudal socialism, like many forms of religious socialism. (Not all forms of religious socialism are semi-feudal in nature)

Case in point: the close alliance with the orthodox Catholic church is one reason why the Solidarity movement in Poland failed.

I believe Marxist can ally with liberal leftists under certain circumstances, particularly the petit-bourgeois liberal leftists in non-imperialist countries, and countries that still have some remanents of semi-feudal structures. In these contexts petit-bourgeois socialism is still relatively progressive.

For instance, most socialists agree that the May 4th movement in 1919 China was a relatively and largely progressive event, but it was not a strictly proletarian movement, it was a movement of the progressive left-liberal petit-bourgeois and petit-intellectuals in China, which was a reactionary semi-feudal state under Western imperialist domination at the time.

I would argue that similar populist movements should also occur in semi-feudal Islamic countries today.

[scarletghoul]

Liberalism is, of course, a bourgeois ideology. While it could be beneficial to ally with them on certain points (example anti-fascism), they can not be considered revolutionary allies due to the class character of their thought.

[Queercommie Girl]

Liberalism is, of course, a bourgeois ideology.

Left-wing liberalism is a petit-bourgeois ideology strictly speaking, not a bourgeois ideology. There is a difference. Most bourgeois liberals are right-wing liberals.

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberalism is our enemy and has been our enemy from the start.

Classical liberalism = conservatism, libertarianism

Reformed Liberalism/Modern American Liberalism/Bastard Keynesianism = Right-Social Democrat

Progressives are potential allies, but even then they still see themselves as having to "keep us in line", because we're too "extreme".

Neo-Liberalism is just plain reactionary.

[scarletghoul]

Left-wing liberalism is a petit-bourgeois ideology strictly speaking, not a bourgeois ideology. There is a difference. Most bourgeois liberals are right-wing liberals.
Petit bourgeoisie is a form of bourgeoisie. The essence of liberalism is common in the ideology of all bourgeoisie from petit bourgeoisie up, notably the right to private property. Yes the petit bourgeoisie is more prone to left-liberalism than neoliberalism etc but it's still liberalism. It is important to distinguish between different sections of the basic classes but we should always remember their class essence, which for all bourgeoisie is ownership of private property and capital, and that is what forms their ideology.

[Queercommie Girl]

Petit bourgeoisie is a form of bourgeoisie. The essence of liberalism is common in the ideology of all bourgeoisie from petit bourgeoisie up, notably the right to private property. Yes the petit bourgeoisie is more prone to left-liberalism than neoliberalism etc but it's still liberalism. It is important to distinguish between different sections of the basic classes but we should always remember their class essence, which for all bourgeoisie is ownership of private property and capital, and that is what forms their ideology.


Actually technically the petit-bourgeois is not the same as the bourgeois, since the petit-bourgeois strictly speaking possesses both the economic characteristics of the bourgeois and the working class. And it is also a mistake to lump left and right wing liberalisms into the same category.

As I said, read the Communist Manifesto. Answer this question: why did Marx list "petit-bourgeois socialism" and "bourgeois socialism" under two distinct headings if they are all the same? Is there not a relatively fundamental difference between the two?

And yes, I'm generally more concerned when Marxists opportunistically ally with Islamists with semi-feudal tendencies (not all Muslims) than I am when they opportunistically ally with left-wing liberals, though strictly speaking both are causes for concern.

Read up about the Iranian Revolution and how the Communist Tudeh Party lost its opportunity to create a genuine Marxist revolution but instead let the Islamists into power.

[RadioRaheem84]

Read up about the Iranian Revolution and how the Communist Tudeh Party lost its opportunity to create a genuine Marxist revolution but instead let the Islamists into power.


I think in the zeal of destroying bourgeois democracy, Marxists tended to side with many anti-Western groups. This proved to be a big challenge to Marxism.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think in the zeal of destroying bourgeois democracy, Marxists tended to side with many anti-Western groups. This proved to be a big challenge to Marxism.

You should read this article criticising the opportunistic stance the British SWP and Respect had with respect to Islamism, very good analysis generally:

http://socialistworld.net/eng/2004/10/12islam.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://socialistworld.net/eng/2004/10/12islam.html)

(They were certainly starting to go down the same route as the old Iranian Marxists)

As a rule of thumb: Marxists are cultural internationalists, we don't pick sides between any religions or cultures intrinsically at all. Cultural essentialism is a type of reactionary idea that must be opposed.

Whenever someone actually comes out with the idea that a particular religion, be it Islam or Buddhism or whatever, is somehow "intrinsically superior" to all others and objectively closer to Marxism, start to worry.

[scarletghoul]

Actually technically the petit-bourgeois is not the same as the bourgeois, since the petit-bourgeois strictly speaking possesses both the economic characteristics of the bourgeois and the working class.
Yes and some of them do a lot of work, however the definition of proletariat is that they don't own anything but their labour power. Whatever one classes as "workers", it's impossible for anyone to be both proletarian and petty-bourgeois, to have nothing to lose but their chains and a small business at the same time.

I'm not saying we should reject all pettybourgeoisie and accept all wage-labourers in the movement; just saying liberalism is a bourgeois ideology in all its forms as it revolves around the right to private property

And it is also a mistake to lump left and right wing liberalisms into the same category.You're misinterpreting me. Im not denying that left-liberalism can have a posetive impact and is different from neoliberalism in many ways. But they do share an origin and essence that is liberalism.


As I said, read the Communist Manifesto. Answer this question: why did Marx list "petit-bourgeois socialism" and "bourgeois socialism" under two distinct headings if they are all the same? Is there not a relatively fundamental difference between the two?
Again, I never once claimed that they were 'all the same'. Im more saying that they are of the same origin, subideologies of liberalism


And yes, I'm generally more concerned when Marxists opportunistically ally with Islamists with semi-feudal tendencies (not all Muslims) than I am when they opportunistically ally with left-wing liberals, though strictly speaking both are causes for concern.
They're both just as bad.. tho opportunism isnt necessarily bad, theres nothing wrong with working with a nonproletarian oppressed group as long as you dont let them take over us


Read up about the Iranian Revolution and how the Communist Tudeh Party lost its opportunity to create a genuine Marxist revolution but instead let the Islamists into power.
Why not read up on the countless communist parties that have adopted petty bourgeois ideas and principles and ended up reformist social democrats ?

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes and some of them do a lot of work, however the definition of proletariat is that they don't own anything but their labour power. Whatever one classes as "workers", it's impossible for anyone to be both proletarian and petty-bourgeois, to have nothing to lose but their chains and a small business at the same time.


You are missing the point. I'm not contesting the fact that the proletariat is different from the petit-bourgeois at all, I'm saying the petit-bourgeois is different from the bourgeois, in terms of their socio-economic status. This is classic Marxist analysis.



I'm not saying we should reject all pettybourgeoisie and accept all wage-labourers in the movement;
Again that's not my point at all. I'm not counterposing the petit-bourgeois to the working class, I'm counterposing the petit-bourgeois to the bourgeois.

Fact is, the "middling layers" of society are not intrinsically reactionary, unlike the ruling class, but always tend to play a dialectical double-sided role: partly reactionary, partly progressive. One of the objective pre-conditions of a socialist revolution is actually 1) a split in the ruling class and 2) the "middling layers" largely coming over to the side of the working class. This indeed occurred in 1917 in Russia. Again, classic Marxist analysis.



just saying liberalism is a bourgeois ideology in all its forms as it revolves around the right to private property
Not so. Philosophically speaking, not all forms of liberalism are economic liberalism in the sense of promoting bourgeois private property. Counter-example: libertarian socialism. There are many such people here on RevLeft.



You're misinterpreting me. Im not denying that left-liberalism can have a posetive impact and is different from neoliberalism in many ways. But they do share an origin and essence that is liberalism.
They are fundamentally different. By left-liberalism I do actually mean the ideological tendency that supports personal, social and moral freedom (e.g. sexual freedom), but not economic freedom in the sense of private property. E.g. libertarian socialism is a form of left-liberalism and a petit-bourgeois ideology, so is green socialism. Are you saying that the pursuit of social and moral freedoms are somehow intrinsically linked with the pursuit of private property? That's ridiculous. Since there is nothing about Marxism itself that is morally or socially conservative, communism is actually described as the "free association of free producers", which sounds rather like a "liberal" slogan.



Again, I never once claimed that they were 'all the same'. Im more saying that they are of the same origin, subideologies of liberalism
Historically speaking, it is not true that all ideologies that contain the word "liberal" share a common origin.



They're both just as bad.. tho opportunism isnt necessarily bad, theres nothing wrong with working with a nonproletarian oppressed group as long as you dont let them take over us
I disagree. Petit-bourgeois socialism is not as reactionary as semi-feudal socialism. During the May 4th movement in 1919 China petit-bourgeois and semi-feudal social forces clashed, and all genuine socialists would agree that the former were certainly relatively more progressive. Relatively supporting the petit-bourgeois does not implying supporting the petit-bourgeois of imperialist countries, but supporting the petit-bourgeois within the semi-feudal states themselves.

During the French Revolution, the plebian petit-bourgeois sans-culottes, though not proletarian, were certainly the most progressive force at the time, while the feudal forces were clearly the most reactionary.

Marxism generally agrees that capitalism is superior and more progressive than feudalism. If one is anti-capitalist in a feudal or semi-feudal direction, to a significant extent it is better not to be anti-capitalist at all. Again, classic Marxist analysis.

You should read more about the French Revolution.

The opportunistic cozying up with religious socialist forces without a principled stance has the potential to cost the socialist movement dearly. I suggest you read that article which criticises the SWP on this matter.



Why not read up on the countless communist parties that have adopted petty bourgeois ideas and principles and ended up reformist social democrats ?
However, objectively speaking when communist forces fall to semi-feudal forces, the quantitative reaction is greater than when communist forces degenerate into social democratic forces. Workers in semi-feudal nations are significantly more oppressed than workers in social democratic nations. So although revolutions that degenerate into social democracy are certainly not successful ones, at least potentially they offer greater scope for a successful revolution in the future objectively speaking. Trotskyists for instance can engage in entryism with some positive results within social democratic parties, but never within semi-feudal theocratic regimes, since they would all be executed.

(It's always somewhat funny to see Marxists actually positively defend certain Islamist regimes considering that these regimes actually regularly execute Marxists. When people lose even a basic sense of self-preservation, it is indeed somewhat worrying)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Liberalism is our enemy and has been our enemy from the start.

Classical liberalism = conservatism, libertarianism

Reformed Liberalism/Modern American Liberalism/Bastard Keynesianism = Right-Social Democrat

Progressives are potential allies, but even then they still see themselves as having to "keep us in line", because we're too "extreme".

Neo-Liberalism is just plain reactionary.


i dont see how neoliberalism is reactionary. im not saying it was progressive, but it is a new development in capitalism.

earlier stages of capitalism revolved around mercantilism and there was always a tarriff and protectionism because early capitalism was also the time of empire building.

neoliberalism is just an attempt to actually apply classical liberalism to the global scene.


its more of an imperialist philosophy and not inherently reactionary, but staunchly pro status quo.

[Amphictyonis]

No! They are our Achilles heel. Let me counts the ways....they are the people we should be pressuring/criticizing.

[Queercommie Girl]

i dont see how neoliberalism is reactionary. im not saying it was progressive, but it is a new development in capitalism.

earlier stages of capitalism revolved around mercantilism and there was always a tarriff and protectionism because early capitalism was also the time of empire building.

neoliberalism is just an attempt to actually apply classical liberalism to the global scene.


its more of an imperialist philosophy and not inherently reactionary, but staunchly pro status quo.

Well, don't you know, for some people, anything related to capitalism or capitalist culture are considered to be completely reactionary, and it's better to return to the slavery era of human sacrifice than to toil under neo-liberal capitalism.

[Ocean Seal]

No, absolute not in any way should we consider liberals our allies. In fact, they are a massive detriment to the left (I can't speak about other countries, because I do not live there, but I am considering this from an American perspective).
Look liberals don't even win the working class vote (most of the time) in America.
Why? They're seen as bourgeois elitists, who constantly push trivial issues and offer no real advantage to the working person.
The average American sees two options at the moment voting for liberals who screw them over and insult their intelligence or conservatives who also screw them over, but they have greater appeal to the working class.

To sum it up
Liberals are not on our side ideologically, and are furthermore unappealing to the workers. So they offer us no advantage.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, absolute not in any way should we consider liberals our allies. In fact, they are a massive detriment to the left (I can't speak about other countries, because I do not live there, but I am considering this from an American perspective).
Look liberals don't even win the working class vote (most of the time) in America.
Why? They're seen as bourgeois elitists, who constantly push trivial issues and offer no real advantage to the working person.
The average American sees two options at the moment voting for liberals who screw them over and insult their intelligence or conservatives who also screw them over, but they have greater appeal to the working class.

To sum it up
Liberals are not on our side ideologically, and are furthermore unappealing to the workers. So they offer us no advantage.

Even in America, it is clearly the wrong strategy to stand on the side of the conservatives against the liberals, based on both class and ideological analysis. Conservatives are clearly firmer defenders of Big Business interests, and there is nothing in Marxist social ideology that is really conservative and promotes the nuclear patriarchal family or anything like that. So I wonder, on exactly which issues can capitalist conservatives and socialists find common grounds?

And factually I don't think what you said here is true either. US trade unions generally pour money into funding the Democratic party in elections (objectively the wrong strategy), but never the Republican party. And for all the hypocritical nature of Obama's health care reforms, at least there is something, whereas the Republicans wouldn't even have raised the issue at all.

And exactly what do you mean by "trivial issues" which liberals promote? Can you elaborate?

[4 Leaf Clover]

Not if they keep their current ideological beliefs. Due the fact that they actually care to preserve their current "cultural and civilizational heritage" , they would probably back up states at the danger of "terrorists and extremists". Most liberals are usually pacifists as well , so i don't think why would revolutionary movement need those ideological paraplegics

[Queercommie Girl]

Not if they keep their current ideological beliefs. Due the fact that they actually care to preserve their current "cultural and civilizational heritage" , they would probably back up states at the danger of "terrorists and extremists".


Isn't it the case that generally speaking conservatives are even more racist and Islamophobic than liberals are in the West?



Most liberals are usually pacifists as well , so i don't think why would revolutionary movement need those ideological paraplegics


Conservatives are even worse since although they are not pacifists, they are violent in an anti-socialist direction generally. Wasn't it the Republican party that started the fascistic McCarthyism that violently persecuted all socialists and communists in the country?

(0 is still bigger than a negative number)

[4 Leaf Clover]

Isn't it the case that generally speaking conservatives are even more racist and Islamophobic than liberals are in the West?

Im not speaking about chauvinism. Liberalism only tends to give the current exploiting system a mask of "freedom , tolerance , and mutual aid". In fact they don't want this system down. This system can only preserve them the position of Intellectual "elite" , and existence in same time so they can continue their intellectual prophecy at no costs


Conservatives are even worse since although they are not pacifists, they are violent in an anti-socialist direction generally. Wasn't it the Republican party that started the fascistic McCarthyism that violently persecuted all socialists and communists in the country?

The question was , do we want them as allies

[Queercommie Girl]

Im not speaking about chauvinism. Liberalism only tends to give the current exploiting system a mask of "freedom , tolerance , and mutual aid". In fact they don't want this system down. This system can only preserve them the position of Intellectual "elite" , and existence in same time so they can continue their intellectual prophecy at no costs

The question was , do we want them as allies

What about libertarian socialists? I think they can be allies for Marxists.

I don't really care whether one calls himself/herself a "liberal" or not, only on what his/her ideological views are in the concrete sense, if the person is against capitalism economically then yes potential alliance is possible.

I'm not taking a pro-liberal position, but I'm somewhat concerned by some socialists' willingness to ally with even more reactionary forces, such as semi-feudal forces, in order to "combat liberalism".

Suppose you went back in time to May 1919 in China. Whose side would you be on? The petit-bourgeois liberals of the May 4th movement who wanted to "smash Confucianism" or the semi-feudal conservatives who wished to preserve China's traditional feudal culture?

[4 Leaf Clover]

What about libertarian socialists? I think they can be allies for Marxists.

I don't really care whether one calls himself/herself a "liberal" or not, only on what his/her ideological views are in the concrete sense, if the person is against capitalism economically then yes potential alliance is possible.

I'm not taking a pro-liberal position, but I'm somewhat concerned by some socialists' willingness to ally with even more reactionary forces, such as semi-feudal forces, in order to "combat liberalism".

Suppose you went back in time to May 1919 in China. Whose side would you be on? The petit-bourgeois liberals of the May 4th movement who wanted to "smash Confucianism" or the semi-feudal conservatives who wished to preserve China's traditional feudal culture?

Hmmmm aren't libertarian socialists , council communists and anarchists ?

Anyways , our allies are only those who accept class struggle. Of course Leninist practice always allows allying with anyone who might help to achieve our primary goal , but not on a political basis , but rather out of interests. We use anything to achieve our goals , and to backstab our enemies

[Queercommie Girl]

Hmmmm aren't libertarian socialists , council communists and anarchists ?


They aren't exactly the same. My point is that just having the word "liberal" as a descriptor means nothing by itself. Technically libertarian socialists are also "liberals", though not in the way you are talking about liberalism here.



Anyways , our allies are only those who accept class struggle. Of course Leninist practice always allows allying with anyone who might help to achieve our primary goal , but not on a political basis , but rather out of interests. We use anything to achieve our goals , and to backstab our enemies

I can ally with people who are against capitalism even though they do not have a clear idea of class struggle and consciousness.

My concern, as I said, is some people's willingness to "combat liberalism" through allying with even more reactionary forces. "Liberalism" is not our enemy as such because it is such a loose term it has no concrete and exact definition. On the other hand, you risk alienating people who have extremely liberal views on social and moral issues but aren't really pro-capitalist or pro-market at all.

Whose side would you be on in the May 4th movement in China 1919?

[4 Leaf Clover]

They aren't exactly the same. My point is that just having the word "liberal" as a descriptor means nothing by itself. Technically libertarian socialists are also "liberals", though not in the way you are talking about liberalism here.
Actually we are talking about liberal democrats. They don't represent not even the "zero". They see capitalism and free market a genuine way to preserve "freedom and democracy bla bla". They are sometimes the most influenced anti-communists. Those we can call different tendencies of capitalism.



I can ally with people who are against capitalism even though they do not have a clear idea of class struggle and consciousness.
Me too , but i wouldn't equate our goals and i would count that they can cross in future


My concern, as I said, is some people's willingness to "combat liberalism" through allying with even more reactionary forces. We shouldn't ally with anyone when it comes to political work. When it comes to armed struggle , we ally with someone who can help us defeat bigger enemy , and who we can dismantle later.

Whose side would you be on in the May 4th movement in China 1919?
On the side of the most progressive at the time i guess

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I wont make allies with monkeys.


http://demokratbloggen.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/neo_liberalism11.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberalism is so tied with progressives, socialists and leftists that your really good cartoon there would be mistaken for a right wing commentary.

I remember my ultra right wing gf's father caught me reading David Harvey's A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism, and he thought the book was a conservative rant about the emergence of liberal democrats! :lol:

He said he hates liberals and wants to read the book.

Oh the irony of it all!

[Milk Sheikh]

The good thing about liberals is that, unlike conservatives, they are at least socially progressive. You won't find much religious fanaticism, hyper-nationalism, homophobic and racist and anti-immigrant attitude, or patriarchy, or any of those backward ideas in a liberal.

The conservative, on the other hand, cannot exist without these ideas; they're the very foundation of his world-view. Remove them and they will cease to be conservatives! So at least as far as progressive politics goes, liberals are far better.

What bothers me, however, is that most of the time, liberals are spoilt rich kids and so they may not be able to relate to the working class. Their progressive politics is all fine with us, but their economic policies are not.

[Burn A Flag]

Look at history. Look what the German social democrats did to the Spartacists. They are not our allies. However, that does not mean we shouldn't try to make them see our point of view. I think most of the average liberals think the way they do because they haven't been exposed to real leftist thought rather than because they are reactionary. I feel that lots of liberals can be sympathetic to our cause or even "converted" to see our point of view. This does not apply to the leadership and the top of the liberal political parties, only to the people who make up their base of support.

[Kiev Communard]

The modern liberals, even social ones, are no friends of Communist cause, just as their historical predecessors weren't either. Bear in mind, comrades, that modern liberal ideology is espoused even by the conservatives, as the "laissez-faire" has historically been the motto of liberal forces, while 19th conservatives clung to protectionism and landed property. Modern "conservatives" (British Tories, American Republicans, etc.) are actually the purest liberals in the strictest sense of the word.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's why Lassalle preferred Bismarck as a coalition partner over the liberal bourgeoisie. Our pool for sympathy should be with the Radical Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_(politics)) (very economically progressive and leaning socially conservative), not the Bohemian Center or the liberals.


My concern, as I said, is some people's willingness to "combat liberalism" through allying with even more reactionary forces. "Liberalism" is not our enemy as such because it is such a loose term it has no concrete and exact definition. On the other hand, you risk alienating people who have extremely liberal views on social and moral issues but aren't really pro-capitalist or pro-market at all.

You're exaggerating things. The "moderate cultural conservatism" of the Radical Center (see the wiki) may be reactionary, but it isn't "even more reactionary." Even within political Islam, for example, there's a trend in some groups towards going to this position, like Hezbollah.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The good thing about liberals is that, unlike conservatives, they are at least socially progressive. You won't find much religious fanaticism, hyper-nationalism, homophobic and racist and anti-immigrant attitude, or patriarchy, or any of those backward ideas in a liberal.

The conservative, on the other hand, cannot exist without these ideas; they're the very foundation of his world-view. Remove them and they will cease to be conservatives! So at least as far as progressive politics goes, liberals are far better.

What bothers me, however, is that most of the time, liberals are spoilt rich kids and so they may not be able to relate to the working class. Their progressive politics is all fine with us, but their economic policies are not.

Well i think heres is the the disquise-thing that liberals have. They might not oppenly suport theese thing, but they will upholde the base which creates them (capitalism) and they wont recognize class analysis, imo they get away far to easy with that.

[28350]

No class-collaborationist popular fronts plz.

[Chris]

No. Liberalism is simply putting a friendly face on capitalis exploitation. Liberalism as a whole would reject a working class revolution, although I guess some liberals would be supportive/neutral their parties/organisations/leaders would oppose it.

[chegitz guevara]

Liberals will not be our allies in a revolution. Liberalism will fragment, with many becoming revolutionaries, with others shrinking in horror and going over to counter-revolution. Some will attempt to mediate between the two sides and others will neither support nor oppose the revolution, but attempt to mitigate it.