Before responding to the criticisms of mass protests, I feel compelled to address the all too cliched use of the term “liberal” (by leftists) to dismiss protests, organizations, movements, campaigns, and/or individuals) to denigrate something as being inadequate.
No doubt the term is intended to draw a distinction between reformist efforts (that make small changes to the existing system) and radical, i.e. revolutionary or transformative efforts (that replace the currently existing, arguably unreformable and unredeemable system with a truly ideal and effective alternative). The distinction itself presupposes that there is a discontinuity between reformist and revolutionary approaches, and that there isn’t a continuous spectrum between the two.[1] (The truth is more complicated, as I will later explain).
In practice, however, the term “liberal” is actually used to mean, “doesn’t conform to my rigid standards of ideological purity.” This, itself is a relic of dogmatic Leninism—which begat Stalinism, where ideological dissent was given zero tolerance and thoroughly crushed—though it’s often shared by other leftist ideologies, including—unfortunately—some of the more libertarian revolutionary theories, including autonomous Marxism and anarchism.
What (the modern concept[2] of) “liberal” actually means is having the belief that the current system of government, economic order, and/or social relationships and norms are mostly ideal, but require periodic reforms and minor adjustments which can be achieved through existing means. It also means that the existing body of rules and regulations are fundamentally sound, but sometimes their interpretations need to leave room for reexamination or tweaking to account for situations that weren’t initially conceived or expected.
There are, indeed, many attendees of mass protests (and a sizable percentage of their organizers) who do possess (this form of) “liberalist” approach to political change, and there are worthy criticisms of that limited outlook (which I wholeheartedly share), but it’s important to note the following:
- Being “liberal” (as opposed to “radical”[3]) isn’t an innate characteristic; it’s a stage of political evolution,
- Related to the previous: just because someone may have a limited, “liberal” (ie reformist) outlook currently doesn’t mean that they won’t become more radicalized over time, especially as a result of political and/or class struggle[4];
- Many of the attendees (and no small percentage of their organizers) of these mass protests are not merely, strictly “liberal” or reformist.
In truth—though many traditional leftists will argue vehemently against this—most attendees (and organizers) of these mass protests exist somewhere on a scale between strictly reformist and “absolutely” revolutionary, and their views are often in flux for a huge panoply of reasons and factors.
While there are definitely very salient critiques of liberalism and/or reformism (and some—though likely not all—apply to these mass protests), the truly effective examples are specific and nuanced, applied with precision as if performing complex surgery or precision craft work. By contrast, the careless and all too frequent use of the term “liberal” has essentially devolved into a mentally lazy copout, akin to treating all problems like nails and applying a sledgehammer to them.
What’s likely motivating many on the left to dismiss such mass protests as “liberal”, i.e. ineffectual and reformist, is bitterness and sour grapes that such mobilizations aren’t being led by their particular favored cadre, which as imprint of Leninist dogma that affects many leftist ideologies, whether closely related to Leninist or not. I elaborate on this in the following section.
Footnotes:
[1] Such beliefs are considered almost axiomatic among traditional leftists, including Marxists and anarchists. History suggests otherwise, however (in fact, history shows that the line between “reform” and “revolution” is very blurry, partly because the distinction depends on what results unfold over time. There have been numerous examples of how supposed “revolutions” (including many that Marxists hold dear) have degraded into reformism or even reaction, and there are no shortage of examples of revolutionary changes that have unfolded that didn’t change the system, per se, but forced it to adapt to the change!)
[2] There exists a distinction between this modern interpretation and classical liberalism, which is a belief in a minimal state (including administrative functions), and laissez faire, almost entirely unregulated, markets and capitalism. This is actually now called “libertarianism” in the United States, and is actually (now) a right-wing political ideology (there was a time when such views were considered progressive, many centuries ago). This form of “liberalism” was not dichotomous with “conservativism”, as the current use of the term “liberal” is. Ironically, “libertarianism” originally described a type of socialism, essentially intended as a less inflammatory sounding way of describing anarchism.
[3] The term “radical” doesn’t necessarily imply “extremist” (contrary to what many actual liberals might believe) either. It means, based on its Latin etymology, “addressing the root of the problem.”
[4] An excellent historical example of this is Eugene V Debs, who was initially a reformist within the trade union movement, but became increasingly radicalized over time through class struggle.