Colinxy: Why Liberalism Keeps Getting Crushed Between the Two Collectivisms

Liberalism — the philosophy of individual rights, limited government, free speech, and voluntary association — should, in theory, be the natural victor in any ideological contest. It produces prosperity, stability, and personal freedom. It avoids the utopian fantasies that lead to mass graves. It is the only system that treats people as individuals rather than as units of a collective.

And yet, historically, liberalism is the ideology that gets crushed first.

Why?

Because liberalism is designed for peace, while collectivist movements, both revolutionary and counter‑revolutionary, are designed for war.

Liberalism assumes that politics is a negotiation. Collectivists assume that politics is a battlefield.

This mismatch is fatal.

Liberalism treats opponents as citizens; collectivists treat opponents as enemies

Liberalism insists on procedural fairness, open debate, and the legitimacy of disagreement. It assumes that even your political adversary has rights.

Revolutionary and counter‑revolutionary collectivists do not. To them, disagreement is treason.

• The revolutionary Left sees dissent as “harm.”
• The counter‑revolutionary “Right” sees dissent as “subversion.”

Both sides are willing to use coercion. Liberalism is not.

This is why liberal institutions get captured so easily: they refuse to defend themselves with the same ruthlessness their enemies use to attack them.

Liberalism disperses power; collectivists centralise it

Liberalism decentralises authority — courts, parliaments, markets, civil society, private life. Collectivists centralise authority — party, leader, ideology, State.

Decentralisation is excellent for freedom. It is terrible for ideological warfare.

A decentralised system cannot coordinate a unified defence against a centralised ideological assault. This is why:

• Marxists captured universities
• Bureaucrats captured public institutions
• Activists captured media and HR departments

All while liberals insisted that “the marketplace of ideas will sort it out.”

It didn’t.

Liberalism relies on norms; collectivists rely on power

Liberalism is a high‑trust system. It assumes:

• honesty
• restraint
• good faith
• respect for rules
• willingness to lose elections without burning the country down

Collectivists assume none of this. They use liberal norms as weapons:

• free speech → to spread propaganda
• academic freedom → to capture universities
• tolerance → to demand intolerance of dissent
• procedural fairness → to block reform
• rights → to dismantle the rights of others

Liberalism’s strength becomes its weakness.

Liberalism is slow; collectivists are fast

Liberalism requires:

• debate
• consensus
• legislation
• judicial review
• public persuasion

Collectivists require:

• a slogan
• a mob
• a decree
• a purge

In a crisis, speed beats deliberation. This is why revolutions, Left or “Right”, can overturn liberal orders in months, while liberals spend years writing reports about what went wrong.

Liberalism refuses to mythologise itself; collectivists thrive on myth

Liberalism is rational, procedural, and modest. It does not offer:

• a heroic narrative
• a chosen people
• a sacred destiny
• a cosmic struggle

Collectivists offer all of these.

People crave meaning. Collectivists supply it. Liberalism supplies paperwork.

This is why liberal societies produce prosperity but not passion, and why collectivist movements can mobilise passion against prosperity.

Liberalism tries to hold the centre; collectivists try to destroy it

Liberalism is a balancing act. Collectivists are demolition crews.

The revolutionary Left attacks the centre as “oppressive.” The counter‑revolutionary “Right” attacks the centre as “decadent.”

Both agree on one thing: liberalism must go.

'Liberals get the bullet too  - Antifa “Graffiti”

And so, liberalism gets crushed between two forces that hate each other, but hate liberalism more.

Liberalism refuses to recognise that neutrality is impossible

Liberalism believes institutions can be neutral. Collectivists know they cannot.

Every institution either:

• protects individual liberty, or
• enforces a collective ideology.

There is no middle ground.

When liberals try to stay neutral, collectivists fill the vacuum. When liberals try to compromise, collectivists take the concession and demand more. When liberals try to appease, collectivists interpret it as weakness.

Neutrality is not a defence. It is an invitation.

The Result: Liberalism Gets Squeezed to Death

Revolutionary collectivism attacks from the Left. Counter‑revolutionary collectivism attacks from the “Right”. Liberalism stands in the middle, insisting that both sides should calm down and talk it out.

They don’t. They crush it.

And unless liberalism learns to defend itself — not with collectivist methods, but with clarity, courage, and unapologetic confidence — it will be crushed again.

Because the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. He is simply your enemy’s enemy — and he may be coming for your freedoms next.

--------------------

Only dated a little, yet still highly relevant (John Cleese on Extremism in 1987)

Click to view

Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister - this article was sourced HERE