To what/whom is the left truly opposed?

[Verneinung]

First. The question is rhetorical.

I'm aware that this has probably been discussed before to an extent, possibly even multiple times; however, I think this is beginning to be, or has been, a really big problem for the left, especially from my (USA) perspective.

I tried to write a longer post, but it turned into a large block of text. I hate that on forums, so I'll try to explain what I'm getting at in something as terse as possible.

When defined as a combination of accepting, and supporting, capitalism and accepting (or just not fighting against) the implications of capitalist society, which I guess would generally be seen as socially and politically progressive, I see the opposition of the left as one between us and liberalism. However, obviously, there are other, what I would only consider, factions of the right, like right-libertarians and various reactionaries.

So, what is the problem? Why isn't the left, at least in a noticeable way, defining its opposition to liberalism as the main enemy? Because what I constantly see is an opposition to the various factions usually reactionary groups, the bourgeoisie as corporations and government without the emphases on the opposition to liberalism, the libertarian types of groups, or the left itself (which I think is fair in certain cases, but it is not the point of my post here).

Being from the US, I've noticed this simply because I see "conservatives" use liberal as a derogatory term, which I am tempted to agree with; but, I have to wonder why they don't get that the term, insofar as it is bad, refers to them, as well. And then you have the groups on the left, in the US, with liberals, Democrats, etc., being exploited at times, in opposition to reactionaries, etc.

So, what is going on here? Are people being duped by the "social" issues? by the system? by at one point maybe being liberal? by the liberal re-framing of the situation? by a lack of philosophical or historical understanding of ideas/ideology? Are liberals just in that much stronger of a position?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean in practical terms. In a general sense, Revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists should be against both liberalism and conservatism as ideologies in support of maintaining the system.

Do you mean who should the revolutionary left target for criticism and opposition at a given time?

[John Nada]

In American vernacular, liberal=left-wing, conservative=right-wing. This isn't how it's defined in the rest of the world or far-left circles, but a American layperson may say the Bolsheviks were "extremely liberal"(:lol: ) and the Nazis were "very conservative". "Liberals" in the American sense would be more like social democrats. Kind of confuses Americans sometimes when a foreign liberal party/movement is actually pretty far-right, and far-left parties are describe as conservative(ie communists in the fSU/PRC who want another socialist revolution are "nostalgic conservative hardliners" and far-right nationalists who support neoliberal austerity are "liberal reformers"). So when rightist whine about "liberals", they mean leftists. Though as of late, it seems after the rise of neoliberalism and its hegemony in the Democratic Party, progressive have become the preferred term.

Why aren't the "liberals" in the American sense, the "principle contradiction" as Maoists would say? Because on an individual level, in terms of social and economic justice, and anti-imperialism(which has a history dating back to the beginning of imperialist-capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League)), those on the left may find more common ground with a progressive than a conservative bigot. Conservatives, as the name suggests, tend to be more stuck in their ways. So it's easier to convince an open-mined person who agrees with you about 60% vs. not at all and thinks you're a piece of shit.

You also have the social relation aspect. Those drawn to the left, workers and oppressed peoples, also have the same "market" as the progressives. If you come from a more "liberal"-minded family and progressive area, they may be more open to a person differing from the traditional norms. Most leftists orgs seem to be based in cities with a progressive tradition already. In arguments, debates and protests, you'd likely find yourself on the progressives' side more than a conservative(ie immigration, civil rights, anti-war, unions). You start off with more common ground. Shouting "Fucking liberals! Heathens! Sinners!" just makes one look like a conservative asshole in this context.

However, I do think that if Socialism is to grow, the left-liberals will have to take a hit. So will the right. Both are going to lose supporters. The "liberal" areas will go "red"(in the communist sense), but so will conservative areas(IMO some that have potential are neglected).

[Verneinung]

In American vernacular, liberal=left-wing, conservative=right-wing. This isn't how it's defined in the rest of the world or far-left circles, but a American layperson may say the Bolsheviks were "extremely liberal"(:lol: ) and the Nazis were "very conservative". "Liberals" in the American sense would be more like social democrats. Kind of confuses Americans sometimes when a foreign liberal party/movement is actually pretty far-right, and far-left parties are describe as conservative(ie communists in the fSU/PRC who want another socialist revolution are "nostalgic conservative hardliners" and far-right nationalists who support neoliberal austerity are "liberal reformers"). So when rightist whine about "liberals", they mean leftists. Though as of late, it seems after the rise of neoliberalism and its hegemony in the Democratic Party, progressive have become the preferred term.


I tried to define liberalism broadly (in the post) to avoid the stating of the obvious about the left being liberal in the US (in unsophisticated terms). I meant liberalism in the broad ideological sense, i.e., secularism (which is sometimes just anti-religion), capitalism, republicanism, utilitarianism/egoism, empiricism (scientism), socially progressive, etc.

When they "whine about 'liberals'", they might mean leftists, but that is definitely not what they are referring to. Their talking points are all not aimed directly, or mostly, at legitimate, left positions, which they create a liberal, straw-man for that only hold up because of the lack of the left being defined as the true opposition to the entire right. Liberals, in the US, for example, were allowed to set themselves up as a false opposition (between so-called "conservatism"). They were allowed to manufacture a false divide, triangulate, control the dialogue, etc., to the point where Obama vs Romney looked like a choice to the general public, which is a part of what I'm questioning in this thread.


Why aren't the "liberals" in the American sense, the "principle contradiction" as Maoists would say? Because on an individual level, in terms of social and economic justice, and anti-imperialism(which has a history dating back to the beginning of imperialist-capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League)), those on the left may find more common ground with a progressive than a conservative bigot. Conservatives, as the name suggests, tend to be more stuck in their ways. So it's easier to convince an open-mined person who agrees with you about 60% vs. not at all and thinks you're a piece of shit.

I think it is very important to distinguish between the general population and ideology (coming from the intellectual leaders). You oppose liberal ideology, specifically, as a main concern, with the focus obviously being especially against leadership. The general public, and leadership as individuals, you would definitely associate with and try to persuade.

I would disagree that the "progressives" would be more "open-minded" and more agreeable, and that is part of the reason behind my post; but, generally, I do get how certain individual would seem similar enough, but that is what I'm questioning. Is this seeming connection the reason why the left has been duped into not taking the needed opposition against any person that sees any value in capitalism or the capitalist state? Or is the right just that powerful, as opposed to the left, that one inevitably has to play that role just to sort of mask the reality that the left is doomed? Or what?


You also have the social relation aspect. Those drawn to the left, workers and oppressed peoples, also have the same "market" as the progressives. If you come from a more "liberal"-minded family and progressive area, they may be more open to a person differing from the traditional norms. Most leftists orgs seem to be based in cities with a progressive tradition already. In arguments, debates and protests, you'd likely find yourself on the progressives' side more than a conservative(ie immigration, civil rights, anti-war, unions). You start off with more common ground. Shouting "Fucking liberals! Heathens! Sinners!" just makes one look like a conservative asshole in this context.

For me, however, a lot of those types of issues come from the creation of a false divide and propaganda. For war, the Democrats, in the US, for example, supported imperialism and war, they just were slightly less erratic, at times. There is always populist opposition to war, but there isn't that legitimate, left opposition there for most (sometimes it is political, emotive, economic, etc). As for civil rights, most, when supported by liberals, don't create a connection to what I would see as a true, left position, either. For a lot of them, justice means tolerance. Or freedom is still the same economic freedom or bourgeois freedom. And a lot of the social issues exist because of a bourgeois framework.

So, to put it plainly, there is an illusion of a connection on these issues, if coming from that progressive background, you oppose, ideologically, the conservative position; however, both the conservative and liberal positions are ridiculous (usually the same, when looking at the big picture) and ought to be, different from the left position. The divide is usually incomplete with both sides splitting the issue - e.g., with race, liberals deprive minorities of individuality, while conservatives ignore that there are problems and deny support, while both sides are racist, perpetuate the problem, project/reject responsibility, etc.

What happens on a lot of things is they either argue over the bourgeois/liberal framework, or within it, splitting the issue. And the left failing to create the divide shows up there.

- - - Updated - - -


Do you mean who should the revolutionary left target for criticism and opposition at a given time?

No I meant what I said: "Why isn't the left, at least in a noticeable way, defining its opposition to liberalism as the main enemy?"

Not targeting liberalism, i.e., the prevalent ideology within the current epoch, is tremendous in terms of negative impact.

Maybe a lot of what I meant is explain in my response to John Nada.

But, a lot of the various other right positions are oppositions to capitalism/bourgeoisie society,(or should I say reactions)(e.g., libertarians trying to explain failures of state and capital through market ideology; conservatives reactions against degradation of morals, religion, community, etc.) which the left seems to have problems with defining as their main objection, for what? reason is my question.