When we discuss politics, the phrase “liberal democracy” is sometimes used. It describes the current system of governance that most of the world functions under today. Liberal Democracy, simply put, is the system where the representatives of the populace are elected every so often to enact policy decisions. While this may seem innocuous, the implications and flaws of this system are extreme. 

First, we must understand the context of liberalism in history. Liberalism, historically speaking, arose from the traditions of the 18th and 19th century Revolutions in Europe and the Americas, where the bourgeoisie of Monarchist states revolted against the previous form of production, the rent-seeking feudal system, or in the case of the United States and Latin America, an extractive colonial system. These revolutions and subsequent shift into the capitalist mode of production was a good thing, and even Marx attests to this in the Communist Manifesto, stating that Capitalism had “rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life”. Marx goes on to further state in the first volume of The German Ideology that this progression follows the real-life path of human development, corresponding with the conflict felt between competing economic interests, mainly being that of the bourgeoisie in towns and the feudal lords of the countryside. The consolidation of power into the hands of the Bourgeoisie is a forward progression from the system of serfdom it replaced. 

Marx attributes this shift to the liberal revolutions, which he saw as a natural change from the feudal mode of production and political movement. Liberalism is, despite what some reactionaries are trying to push currently, better than feudalism. However, Liberalism is far from good. Liberal Democracy is skewed to advantage the bourgeoisie in every aspect.  In Chapter five of The State and Revolution, Lenin expands upon Marx’s criticism of This aspect of Liberal politics, in that Liberalism allows the oppressed to pick from a small list of bourgeois candidates to represent them for a period of time before repeating the process again. 

To see this, One simply has to examine the practicality of running in an election in a democracy, for instance. To fund a campaign, it takes capital. Not just capital to pay any filing fees to actually run, but also to pay staffers, canvassers, and advisors as well, not to mention the sheer cost of ad space. Simply put, it’s expensive to run for office, let alone actually winning. With this massive barrier to entry, it leaves only those who can rally immense grassroots support, and in turn, small dollar donations, or the economic elite, who already have the capacity to run without having to worry about these hurdles, either through their own finances, or through political and economic connections.

But let’s take the communist grassroots organizer who can make that breakthrough, how effective can they be as an outsider? Firstly, they will either be incorporated or ignored. The clout of moneyed interest within liberal democratic institutions is strong. The outsider will be forced to compromise their stances to be allowed a seat at the table, as liberalism is built on the idea that so-called “radical” beliefs would be tempered by the marketplace of ideas. This compromise leads to the communist’s very nature to be subverted.

This issue of subversion is only an issue for the Communist, however. The Fascist actor, who’s willing to lie to the greater public to obtain power, is often brought into power with open arms. While there might seem to be a level of distaste for the fascist, they will ultimately be allowed to work within the liberal framework solely to dismantle it. Liberals, when faced with these lies, are poised to believe them on the grassroots level, and will work with the liar to retain some semblance of power on the elite level. It’s by no mistake that only one Communist party was allowed to enter the political fray peacefully, the Sammarinese Communist Party. It’s also no mistake that the Sammarinese Communist Party was coup’d by the capitalist world, who supported the rebel faction during the Rovereta Affair.

Liberalism is meant to perpetuate itself and capitalism in general. The very idea of the marketplace of ideas is ironic, it acts as a true market, where the commanders of capital can force any idea, positive or negative, to the ground with the sheer weight of their cash. This creates the appearance of centrist policies beating out more extreme ones due to public support, but in actuality, the support isn’t necessary at all. Take the current situation in the United States surrounding abortion, for example. Most Americans are against a ban on the medical practice, but we still see the majority party in power pushing to outlaw it. 

This disconnect is because Liberalism thrives off of the exploitation of the working class. By pulling the wool over the eyes of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie is able to lead them blindly to their own enslavement. The liberal status quo sees exploitation as normal and good. Minimum wages, for example, are wage floors made to keep workers from dying from poverty, but this was done only after it was deemed to be more profitable to keep the proletariat alive and healthy. Liberal progress is always done at the benefit of the bourgeoisie. A healthier worker can work harder during the day. It may be a material change that could be seen as progress, but in actuality these steps are meant to prolong the inevitable revolutionary process.