I worked at the farm over the summer. During one of our breaks, politics came up: January 6th, the “insurrection”. One of my coworkers, a military guy, argued that the police were on the side of the rioters. A friend and I, both communists, nodded in agreement—that made sense to us. The liberals in the room, however, looked confused. “I don’t think that’s right,” one said. I shared a glance with the military guy, both of us understanding our agreement on the situation but (perhaps unknown to him) disagreeing wholly on our interpretation of the circumstances. 

In this conversation, I saw just one manifestation of a larger phenomenon: both fascists and communists are aware of the stakes of a battle that liberals are completely blind to. 

The genocide in Palestine has been seen as a litmus test for those on the left, separating the liberals from the leftists. My comrades and I have been working tirelessly since October 7th to do what we can where we can to aid the Palestinian effort for liberation. We understand our actions alone can not end the occupation, but it is precisely the coordinated action of millions of concerned people across the world—especially in the heart of empire—that is necessary to see a free Palestine in our lifetime. We asked for a condemnation of the genocide, a call for a ceasefire, and divestment from Israel and America’s mass-murder machine. 

The response of liberals to our efforts was confounding to me. I have always understood how, on a theoretical level, modern liberals and leftists were opposed, but this understanding was always “in the books” and never “in the field”. The opposition was always a distant political event but never an active threat that I had to face. Unconsciously, I felt that liberals were simply misguided, and, if presented with effective political action, they would realize their errors and work alongside us on the left. I understand now this was due to my lack of experience. 

They insisted that taking no political action was the safest route. Apparently, political action had the potential to offend certain people (people offended by the end of a genocide need to be protected, of course). When pressed on this point, they would add that people thought about the so-called ‘Israel-Hamas War’ in many different ways, so any one statement is bound to make somebody feel left out. When there is a multiplicity of ideas, the democratic thing to do is supposedly to leave them be; we must radically include all voices, ideas, and perspectives. Making a statement, by asserting that something is true, therefore excludes those who think that thing is not true—it hampers the multiplicity of ideas. 

If we follow this line of argument (I’ll call it the “multiplicity argument”) to its logical conclusion, then any action—not just a political statement or action—is impossible. No action can take into account all people’s views at all times. No good can be consumed without preventing others from consuming it. No tax can be imposed without taking money from somebody. No profit can be made without exploiting labor and nature. I wouldn’t say that any of the previous actions can be strictly defined as “inclusive of all people involved.” Yet we aren’t, as a society, standing still. We make statements, we consume goods, we pay taxes, and profits are rising. We act. It’s absurd that I have to say this, but if we accept the multiplicity argument as valid, then people doing things becomes paradoxical. But why are some actions acceptable, “neutral” even, whereas some offend?

To liberals, a “neutral” action is one that promotes or is part of the free flow of capital. The actions of capital cannot offend because capital is simply the way of the world and the way the world must be. Capitalism has so deeply ingrained itself into the way we think that we don’t see its absurdity even when it’s right in front of us. Supporting businesses tied to genocide is not political, it cannot offend, because it is not judged based on its real qualities but its economic value. Funding your university with money earned through genocide is not political, it cannot offend. The police are not political, there is no world in which they do not support what is right (read: “the free flow of capital”). GDP growth is a valid metric for the success of a nation even though it increases regardless of whether the increase in economic activity is from a car crash or a new vaccine.

Do all the good you want, liberals won’t like it if it doesn’t make money. 

This idea of “neutrality” is not only a descriptive but a prescriptive term. The liberal mind, as if quite literally possessed by a demon (read: “the free flow of capital”), strives to neutralize the entire field of action, storming through the walls of basic human dignity in order to pave the way for their faceless king (read: “the free flow of capital,” “demon”) to take a seat on his decrepit throne. 

Fascism is an equally terrifying threat to all of our lives, wishing not to neutralize but destroy. But in its opposition to liberal neutrality, there is a shared understanding between us and the fascists: we understand that the world is not a neutral multiplicity to simply be observed or tolerated, but a site of struggle to be won. For the fascists, the goal is to strangle the multiplicity, to deny its existence. For the liberals, the goal is to simply affirm the multiplicity precisely to the extent that it allows for the free flow of capital (all are recognized as equally having the right to be exploited for their labor and to consume goods, etc.). For us, the communists, the goal is to affirm the multiplicity and let it develop to a consensus – in short, to let the multiplicity live and breathe. 

The system we live under is often called “democracy”. When asked why we call this sham a “democracy,” it is said: “Look at the multiplicity of ideas, identities, and feelings these people are allowed to have!” At no point will I deny the existence of different ideas, identities, and feelings that people have – this is, in fact, a necessary moment of democracy. But that is all it is: a moment. Bourgeois “democracy” cuts democracy off before it can fully germinate, because it will never allow democracy to encroach upon the territory claimed by capital. 

What does full democracy look like? Well, democracy is, at its core, a decision-making procedure. Without decision, there is no democracy. What democracy calls for is an understanding of the multiplicity and then the procedure of reaching a consensus among the multiplicity as to which direction it will take. In other words: people can think, feel, and be whatever they want, but they must come to a conclusion regarding those thoughts, feelings, and identities, and decide which are to be accepted, and which are not. We must at some point make binding decisions and act upon those decisions. 

Full democracy allows us to accept queer people, people of color, and women. It also allows us to deny fascists, racists, and homophobes the right to act out their destructive fantasies. As long as we keep “democracy” in its premature, abortive state, bigots of all varieties will thrive and multiply. Full democracy allows us to say, definitively: “We declare the human right to freedom from domination, and nobody, under any circumstances, shall treat any group of people as Israel has treated the Palestinians.” Isn’t it beautiful to think that the bloodshed and violence we could avoid if we could simply make a rational decision on a societal level, unrestrained by the powers that be?

Some might be scared of the possibility of universally applied laws. I understand this. What if the bigots, the fascists, the war criminals “win” some decisions? When speaking to environmentally minded people, they often raise an eyebrow—“You really trust people to make the most sustainable decision?” What if people make the “wrong” decision? This is a legitimate fear. But do we expect the senate, or God forbid, the president to make the “right” decision? Do we expect Bezos and Musk to act with our best interests in mind? 

The bigots, the fascists, and the war criminals will continue to win under liberal “democracy” so long as we do not engage in the democratic struggle of deciding what is right and what is wrong. Until we get rid of the undemocratic structures and paradigms that control our lives, rational and just choice on a large scale is impossible. 

So, is there a critique of democracy from the left? No. Had the political party not ruined the name, I would call myself a staunch democrat. We, as communists, should strive to create a full democracy, one that both recognizes multiplicity while subjecting it to procedures of democratic centralism in order to allow all of humanity to decide the rules that they will follow. All of society should be guided by rules decided by all of society. We must win democracy. After winning democracy, we create the possibility of winning justice for all.