Another characteristic of the anti-imperialist position has been the attitude toward liberalism.
It follows that if one takes the anti-imperialist criterion, then one cannot but equate liberalism with open reaction, since both open reaction and liberalism are ideologies of imperialism, and the open reactionaries and the liberals do not differ in supporting imperialism in general. None of the big monopolists, none of the Senators or Congressmen, none of the big newspapers are against imperialism in general. None of them are anti-imperialist. All of them must be thrown into the enemy camp. Such is the logic of the anti-imperialist position, logic which, fortunately, is not consistently followed by all the adherents of the anti-imperialist strategy.
Quite aside from logic, there is another root to this attitude, namely the 60’s, the period in which much of the new left forces developed. In that period, in the days of the Kennedy’s and the Johnson’s (and yes, Ramsey Clark), it was the liberals who were presiding over the conduct of the war. Many of the college administrations were liberal. In those days we all got a belly full of liberalism, and we all legitimately sneered at the old CP for trying to embellish liberalism by pointing to some of the openly right wing nut groups as the main danger even at that time when it was none other than Kennedy and Johnson who were conducting the war and later, under Johnson, conducting the war against the movement.
But certain developments began shaping up which passed un-noticed by many forces – namely, a gradual differentiation between open reaction and liberalism was taking place, and this difference was not always without significance. In regard to the Vietnam war for example, as it became clear that the U.S. could not win the war, that it was losing, a considerable liberal opposition began to develop. True, none of these forces opposed the war because they opposed imperialism in general. They opposed it because they felt it was not worth the price, because of the upheaval it was causing at home, and so forth. But the fact was, it was no longer possible to lump open reaction and liberalism together. True, liberalism remained treacherous, unreliable, as it will always remain, but this did not exclude the fact that on some important issues, liberalism was sometimes opposed to open reaction. There was a significant difference in the positions on the war between Nixon and McGovern, for example.
Or take ”busing. Here again, if the left makes no distinction between liberalism and open reaction, whether one likes it or not, one cannot help but aid open reaction. They are not equally the main enemy. There is necessarily a united front between left and liberal elements in that struggle. The left elements, such as R.U., which refuse to see that must objectively side with open reaction, as it became fairly easy for many people to see.[1]
To take another example, look at Watergate and the impeachment of Nixon. There were issues of importance to the people involved in the Watergate affair taken in the wider sense, that is considering all the assaults on people’s liberties, bourgeois democratic liberties, instigated and conducted by Nixon. A lot of this was exposed by liberal forces. True the liberal opposition was always very flabby, very treacherous, very unreliable, but for all that it was a real opposition during the time of Watergate, nor was there much of a left opposition to contrast to it.
It is impossible to expose liberalism without uniting with it at certain points. It is absolutely impossible to expose its treachery and unreliability, and the need for working class leadership. It is impossible because to a certain extent liberalism is a real opposition, and attracts people who want to fight, and leads them in the fight, in a very treacherous and irresolute way, however. If we do not acknowledge this very real aspect of the liberal opposition, then the people turn away from us as blind, and we forfeit our chance to expose the main aspect of liberalism, which is its treachery and inclination to cave in to open reaction, precisely because it too is based on capitalist interests.
Certainly, the history of the communist movement gives no justification for such a policy of not recognizing distinctions. During Stalin’s day, the Soviet Union certainly made a distinction between those states which were willing to peacefully coexist with the S.U. and those that were not. She made a very definite distinction between those states and parties which were willing to join in a united front against fascism and those that weren’t.
After the war she made a distinction between those forces and parties which were instigating the “cold war” and those that weren’t. China, as is well known, certainly distinguishes among bourgeois governments, and in some cases even parties, as far as their attitude toward developing normal ties with China is concerned, and also as far as opposing the U.S. and of late, especially, Soviet imperialism.
During the 7th World Congress, Dimitroff pointed out how mistaken were those comrades who pointed to Roosevelt as the source of the fascist danger, who did not see that it was precisely those who were attacking Roosevelt who were the source of the fascist danger, etc.
Finally, we cannot help referring to Lenin in his Left Wing Communism: “The difference between the Churchills and the Lloyd Georges – with significant national distinctions, those political types exist in all countries – on the one hand, and between the Hendersons and the Lloyd Georges on the other hand, are quite minor and unimportant from the standpoint of pure (i.e., abstract) communism, i.e., communism that has not yet matured to the stage of practical political action by the masses. However, from the standpoint of this practical action by the masses, these differences are most important. To take due account of these differences, and to determine the moment when the inevitable conflicts between these “friends”, which weaken and enfeeble all the “friends” taken together, will have to come to a head – that is the concern, the task, of a communist who wants to be, not merely a class conscious and convinced propagandist of ideas, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution...”
Also, “At present, British communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing...but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in the same way as a rope supports a hanging man...”
[1] This became clear as day when a headline, “Unite to Smash the Boston Busing Plan”, appeared on the front of REVOLUTION. Ford, Hicks, Kerrigan, the KKK and others were already uniting to smash the Boston busing plan. The R.U. has since criticized the headline, but without changing its basic position.