Left Wing Extremism
By: Jakob Guhl
Over the past 20 years, the focus of counter-extremism efforts has been on right-wing and Islamist extremism, as they currently present the main extremist threats to democracy and human rights, and pose a significant security threat in many countries. This has often led to claims that there is an imbalance, with left-wing extremism not receiving the attention from policymakers, researchers and practitioners it deserves.
There are indeed serious and legitimate concerns about far-left groups who use violence, promote anti-democratic ideologies and antisemitism or amplify the propaganda of authoritarian states. At the same time, it is important to not conflate radical but peaceful protest movements on university campuses or civil disobedience tactics with those on the far left who promote political violence or the abuses perpetrated by Communist state bureaucracies in the 20th century. Instead, a nuanced assessment of left-wing extremism and its relationship with broader radical left movements is imperative. Simply equating different types of extremism with each other risks failing to recognise their differences, and therefore the unique threats they pose.
This Explainer outlines definitional considerations around far-left extremism, drawing a key distinction between the radical left and left-wing extremism, and highlights three harm areas associated with the broader far left: political violence and terrorism, authoritarianism, and the justification of dominance over out-groups.
Defining Key Terms: Far Left, Radical Left and Left-Wing Extremism
Defining extremism, and left-wing extremism1 in particular, has proved controversial, with competing definitions used by governments, academics and civil society groups.
ISD defines extremism as the advocacy of political and social change in line with a system of belief that claims the superiority and dominance of one identity-based ‘in-group’ over an ‘out-group.’ Extremism advances a dehumanising, ‘othering’ mind-set incompatible with pluralism and universal human rights, and can be pursued through violent or non-violent means. Extremism can be advocated by state and non-state actors alike.
Often, extremism has been narrowly framed around security threats related to terrorism and violent extremism. ISD’s definition complements efforts focused on political violence and terrorism, and considers the broader risks to democracy, human rights and social cohesion presented by the non-violent promotion of extremist ideologies.
Classifying far-left groups using ISD’s definition of extremism is not straightforward. There is no broadly agreed upon definition of the far left, and scholarship on such groups in contemporary Western societies is much less developed than research on the far right. Far–left groups and networks are typically rooted in Marxist, socialist or anarchist ideologies. They usually pursue an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and radically egalitarian anti-fascist agenda, typically with an internationalist outlook. Within the far-left, there are major disagreements about the legitimacy of political violence, the need for a state, whether to prioritise nationalism or internationalism, the relative importance of economic versus ‘postmaterialist’ values (such as race, gender, LGBTQ+-issues, identity politics, culture, individual autonomy and environmentalism) and their attitudes towards anti–Western authoritarian governments.
It could be argued that since far-left groups do not necessarily promote the superiority and dominance of one identity-based ‘in-group’ over an ‘out-group’ they do not fall under ISD’s definition. Many on the far left would object that they merely seek to make society more democratic and equal.
However, surveys measuring left-wing authoritarianism show a significant prevalence of anti-pluralist and anti-democratic views within the far left. There is also no doubt far-left governments have historically created totalitarian and authoritarian regimes that committed mass atrocities, supressed political liberties and rejected human rights; these practices persist in several present-day far-left regimes (see following section). Furthermore, some of these regimes have explicitly singled out and systematically persecuted groups based on categories such as class, political ideology or religion. Overall, it appears clear that there are sub-sections of the far left which promote a dehumanising, ‘othering’ mindset incompatible with a universal application of democracy and human rights and could therefore be classified as extremist. These issues are explored in more detail in the sections below on authoritarianism and out-groups.
In general, ISD’s definition of extremism draws a key distinction between radical critiques of the status quo that do not promote supremacist or authoritarian societies, and extremist ideologies which do. A similar distinction had been applied to the far left by the political scientist Luke March. He argues for a distinction between left-wing radicalism and extremism; the latter groups are anti-democratic, and the former advocate fundamental political and economic changes without being anti-democratic per se. This divide mirrors a common distinction2 made between the radical right and the extreme right. It is important to not overuse the term extremism in relation to protest groups which promote environmentalist, anti-capitalist or anti-war aims using methods of civil disobedience, but which do not promote a hierarchy between in- and out-groups or oppose democracy.
Drawing on our own definition of extremism and this crucial distinction, we suggest that left-wing extremism should be defined as a belief system that:
- Dogmatically claims the absolute moral superiority of communist or socialist political values,
- That separates political actors into binary moral categories accordingly, and
- That aspires to gain a monopoly of control over society.
Left-wing extremists commonly reject key tenets of liberal democracies, among them the separation of powers, universal human rights and political pluralism. They frequently express sympathies for authoritarian regimes and the conspiracy theories spread by them.
It should be noted that while anarchists may commit political violence, it is difficult to see how they could fall under any definition of extremism that centres the exercise of power as they reject states and governments. Anarchists should therefore be classified as radical left, not as extremist.
A common concern voiced about the term left-wing extremism is that it implicitly equates left-wing extremism with other forms of extremism, thereby downplaying the currently more severe threat from right-wing extremism and Islamist extremism. However, the term ‘extremism’ draws attention to similarities between different movements and ideologies without necessarily equating them with each other. While left-wing extremism has a history of brutality (see following sections), it currently presents a lesser threat to open, inclusive and democratic societies. Additionally, left-wing extremists have been less likely than right-wing extremists and Islamist extremists to violently target or discriminate against people based on categories including race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease. While these differences are important to acknowledge, this should not lead to a dismissal of left-wing extremism.
Ultimately, there are three concrete areas of harm associated with some groups on the far left: political violence and terrorism, authoritarianism, and the justification of dominance over (identity-based) out-groups. The following sections outline key examples of all three.
Harms Associated with the Far Left
Beyond definition debates, focusing on specific harmful behaviours perpetrated by far-left groups can help to make such conversations more concrete. This includes political violence, exclusionary and discriminatory rhetoric, the promotion of disinformation and conspiracy theories, support for authoritarian regimes, and both genocide and atrocity denial.
It should be noted that these behaviours can be found among individuals and groups that would be classified as both radical left or left-wing extremist; while more likely to be found among extremists than radicals, these behaviours do not automatically imply support for authoritarian or anti-democratic ideals. For example, the support for authoritarian states found among some voices on the far-left may not reflect an ambition to live under such a regime: instead, they may just avoid criticising authoritarian states hostile to the West in order to avoid legitimising Western military action.
The following sections provide a brief overview of harm areas associated with far-left groups.
Political Violence and Terrorism
In the 2020s, it can be easy to forget that in relatively recent history far-left groups were seen as one of the main sources of political violence internationally. The scholar David Rapoport has famously divided the history of terrorism into four distinct waves:
- Anarchist (1880s–1920s)
- Anticolonial (1920s–1960s)
- New Left (1960s-1990s)
- Religious (1979–2020s)
During the New Left wave, Marxist-Leninist groups such as the Italian Red Brigades, the German Red Army Faction and the US-based Weather Underground committed terrorist attacks including assassinations, bombings and kidnappings. Other groups labelled as part of the New Left Wave include the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA).
Following the demise of most of the terrorist groups associated with the New Left, incidents of left-wing terrorism have continued at a much lower level. Lethal far-left attacks have been extremely rare: one person has been killed by far-left violence in the US since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre, while no deaths have been attributed to such violence in major Western European countries such as Germany, the UK, Spain or France since the 1990s, and none in Italy since the early 2000s.
Below the terrorism threshold, far-left groups regularly engage in riots, acts of vandalism and street violence. These incidents generally target political opponents, law enforcement, military personnel, infrastructure, corporations and financial institutions. The most common targets of far-left violence are political opponents, especially far-right extremist groups: in May 2023, a court in Dresden sentenced four individuals belonging to a militant anti-fascist cell to prison for violent attacks against right-wing extremists.
A more amorphous category of far–left groups operates under the banner of ‘Antifa’ (short for “anti-fascist”). This diverse collection of organisations across the globe is united by a shared belief that they are collectively resisting fascist ideology. In both the US and many European countries, they have engaged in targeted violence against the far right, as well as in acts of vandalism and rioting. Anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist groups have often organised protests that have included acts of vandalism or even violent encounters with the police. As these contemporary networks are often highly decentralised, there is no overarching central authority that could issue official stances towards the acceptable use and targets of political violence. This also means that it is not possible to classify Antifa overall as either radical or extreme left: specifical ideological stances will differ between groups.
Despite the legacy of far-left terrorism and significant presence of lower-level violent behaviour within contemporary far-left movements, scholars have also identified factors that constrain far-left violence. Teun van Tongen argues that many far-left groups view violence as ineffective (as it is likely to provoke state repression and alienate the broader public), undemocratic (especially when committed by small and clandestine groups), and contrary to their values of opposing power hierarchies and rule by force.
Lastly, it is not uncommon for far-left groups to express support for groups engaged in acts of political violence or terrorist tactics without actively participating. ISD research found that far-left groups voiced support for terrorist attacks perceived as anti-imperialist or anti-colonial, even when terrorist groups adhered to entirely different ideological convictions. This included voices which have expressed support for the October 7 attacks by Hamas, a group whose belief system is mutually exclusive with core tenets of the far left. For example, three women in the UK were convicted for displaying paraglider stickers (some Hamas members had entered southern Israel using paragliders on October 7) during a pro-Palestine protest in London. In Germany, the far-left group Samidoun publicly handed out sweets in celebration of the attacks on October 7. The Houthis (which the US lists as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group) have similarly enjoyed increasing popularity among the Western far left: former UK Member of Parliament George Galloway referred to the militia as “the most popular people’s army anywhere in the world right now”, while the slogan “Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around” was chanted at protests to celebrate attacks on international shipping companies by the Houthis.
Authoritarianism
Over the course of the 20th century, authoritarian communist or socialist regimes exerted a significant influence on global affairs. At home, they combined large-scale economic programs aimed at reducing economic inequalities with repressive structures that maintained strict and centralised control over political, social, cultural and economic life.
Authoritarian or totalitarian left-wing regimes included the Soviet Union following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and China after the 1949 Communist Revolution. Under Joseph Stalin, political dissent was crushed, and millions were executed, imprisoned or sent to forced labour camps (known as the Gulag3). In China, Mao Zedong led large-scale campaigns such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution aimed at reshaping Chinese society and eliminating class hierarchies. These led to widespread suffering and millions of deaths4. Other authoritarian left-wing regimes emerged in countries such as North Korea, Cuba and various Eastern European states during the 20th century.
Beliefs
Despite this well-documented history, the nature and prevalence of left-wing authoritarian beliefs has received less attention than right-wing authoritarianism over recent decades. In fact, the very existence of left-wing authoritarianism has been disputed5. However, recent and rigorous empirical studies strongly suggest that left-wing authoritarianism does exist and predicts behaviours such as involvement in violence.
According to recent scholarship, left-wing authoritarianism consists of three key elements:
- Anti–hierarchical aggression, i.e. the desire to violently overthrow and punish elites,
- Top-down censorship, i.e. the desire to use power to suppress political pluralism, and
- Anti–conventionalism, ‘a moral absolutism concerning progressive values’ which should be imposed over inherently immoral right-wing beliefs with the ultimate aim of creating ‘social and ideological homogeneity.’
There is some overlap between these elements and established conceptions of right-wing authoritarianism, such as a desire for purity and a readiness to use coercive power and violence. However, left-wing authoritarianism is clearly distinguished by anti-hierarchical aggression and anti–conventionalism. These research findings reject the notion that authoritarianism on the far left is incidental to the ideology.
One recent study also found that authoritarianism was more common among respondents with left-wing beliefs than among those with right-wing beliefs across a number of countries. While authoritarianism is more common among the right in most countries in Western Europe and South America, left-wing authoritarianism is more common in many Eastern European countries and former Soviet republics. It is also more prevalent in other countries including Egypt, Thailand, Algeria and Tunisia. These findings on the prevalence of left-wing authoritarianism are in line with a study 2011 study on 13 Eastern European countries.
Support for Authoritarian Regimes
Beyond the level of beliefs, there is a long history of radical and extreme left writers and activists expressing support for authoritarian governments.
For example, activist and scholar Angela Davis expressed support for the German Democratic Republic (GDR), where she was received as a guest of honour by its leadership in the early 1970s. Prominent far-left voices such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Jeremy Corbyn, Tariq Ali and Oliver Stone have declared solidarity with the socialist regimes in Venezuela and Cuba despite well-documented human rights abuses. Smaller far-left groups such as the Communist Party of Britain (whose former leader Andrew Murray was an advisor to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn) have even expressed solidarity with the dictatorship in North Korea.
On a range of dedicated subreddits and online-fora, the term ‘tankie’ has been revived to describe authoritarian tendencies on the far-left over recent years. In some instances, tankie is also used as a self-description. The term identifies those who defend authoritarian communist regimes. It originated in Hungary during the 1956 uprising and refers to the tanks used to suppress uprisings against the Soviet-allied government.
Far-left support for authoritarian regimes extends beyond socialist and communist states. For example, British academic David Miller, who works for the English-language Iranian state outlet Press TV, dismisses the authenticity of the Iranian women’s rights movement and defends Iranian foreign policy. Miller argues that the Iranian regime and the Quds Force (the foreign arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) are crucial for the liberation of Palestine.
Atrocity Denial
In addition to outright support for authoritarian regimes, far-left groups have a long history of atrocity and genocide denial.
For example, high-profile far-left writers including George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, as well as the journalist Walter Duranty, downplayed the severity of the Holodomor, the man-made famine that killed millions in the Soviet Union (especially in Ukraine) in 1932-33. Decades later, prominent far-left thought leaders such as Noam Chomsky argued that reports based on refugee testimony about the Cambodian genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge between 1975-79 were exaggerated propaganda.
Prominent far-left voices have also accused Western media outlets of exaggerating atrocities committed by Serbian forces in Bosnia to justify military action. Living Marxism, the outlet of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was successfully sued for libel after accusing broadcaster ITN of deliberately misreporting the conditions in Serbian prison camps. Living Marxism also denied the genocide in Rwanda.
High-profile voices on the contemporary far left continue this tradition in seeking to deny reports of genocide, mass killing and war crimes committed by anti-Western regimes. Online influencers such as Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate and Rania Khalek have dismissed reports about war crimes committed by the Syrian regime – especially around massacres using chemical weapons in Douma and Ghouta – as well as the mass incarceration of Uyghur Muslims in China and Russian atrocities in Ukraine including the Bucha massacre.
Out-Groups
As has been outlined, far-left ideologies do not generally promote a belief in the inherent inferiority of people based on identity characteristics. However, both historical and contemporary left-wing extremist regimes have persecuted groups based on characteristics including class, political belief, education, religion, and national or ethnic background. Since this hostility was generally not based on immutable characteristics, the status of such groups frequently changed according to political circumstances and the decisions of political leaders.
Perhaps most common among left-wing extremists is the demonisation of political opponents, which is used to justify state surveillance, discrimination or even violence against them. While less frequent among contemporary left-wing extremist movements, class-based oppression and persecution was a prominent feature of authoritarian left-wing regimes in the 20th century, from Stalin’s collectivisation in the 1930s to the attempts of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime to create an agrarian communist utopia by eradicating intellectual and professional elites.6
These cases of state persecution of political opponents and other groups portrayed as suspect are extreme but research suggests that people holding left-wing views are not immune from supporting discrimination based on the violation of their principles. It is important not to conflate every report of ‘cancel culture’ on university campuses or discussions of privilege to abuses perpetrated by Communist state bureaucracies in the 20th century. Nevertheless, it is crucial to be aware that left-wing extremist ideologies can classify political opponents as the ‘other’ and justify constraining political pluralism.
It is also worth highlighting past and current forms of left-wing extremist persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. During the earlier decades of the Soviet Union, authorities portrayed the Russian Orthodox Church and other religious institutions as threats to state authority; they imprisoned or executed religious leaders, and severely restricted religious practice7. Stalin’s regime also viewed ethnic groups including Chechens, Crimean Tatars, and Volga Germans as potential enemies, particularly during WWII. These groups were deported en masse to remote parts of the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) similarly oppresses Uyghur Muslims, practitioners of Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhists8. North Korea’s regime also does not allow any independent religious expression, and persecutes adherents of Shamanism, Christianity and others suspected of religious practices.
A common tendency among far-left groups whose main focus is opposition to US imperialism is to otherise and implicitly divide national and religious groups into binary moral categories, depending on if they are believed to be aligned with the US. For example, some on the far left regularly describe Syrians (especially Sunni Muslims), Ukrainians and Uyghurs as ‘jihadist’ or ‘fascist’ puppets of the US and Israel.
Lastly, antisemitism on the far-left has a long history, including the persecution and institutional discrimination against Soviet Jews and anti–Zionist militant groups targeting Jewish institutions during the ‘New Left’ wave of terrorism9. For the contemporary far left, the increasing prevalence of anti–Zionism and a conspiracy mentality provide two major openings to antisemitism. Criticism of Israel and antizionist positions are of course not necessarily antisemitic and are sometimes unfairly conflated with antisemitism. However, there is consensus among scholars of antisemitism that hostility towards Israel and Zionism can be expressed in ways that are antisemitic or motivated by antisemitic beliefs. Additionally, a belief in conspiracy theories can be attractive for some on the far left who seek to challenge systemic social and economic inequality. However, as antisemitism is often centred around the idea of a global Jewish conspiracy, studies have found that antisemitic attitudes are correlated to conspiracy mentality.
Conclusion
Left-wing extremism is often overlooked, in part because the worst state abuses and non-state violence associated with proponents of communist and socialist ideologies happened several decades ago. However, some actors on the broader far left continue to carry out or support acts of political violence and terrorism, adhere to authoritarian beliefs or support authoritarian regimes, and justify discrimination against people based on characteristics such as class, political belief, education, religion, and national or ethnic background.
At the same time, the term left-wing extremism should not be over-used to delegitimise social movements that seek to fundamentally challenge the status quo but believe in universal human rights rather than the abolition of democracy. In this article, we have therefore argued that distinguishing between extremist and radical left movements is critical. This allows policymakers, researchers and practitioners to both more comprehensively tackle extremism in all its manifestations and address concrete harms associated with left-wing extremism without limiting the space for legitimate civil society activism.
End Notes
[1] In the United Kingdom, the term ‘hard left’ is commonly used to pejoratively describe groups and individuals who promote socialist and communist ideas, opposed to the ‘soft left’ which is leans more towards social democracy. The terminology goes back to disputes in the UK Labour party in the early 1980’s, when the party was increasingly polarised between ‘soft left’ figures such as later leader Neil Kinnock and the ‘hard left’ around Tony Benn. However, the terms are not widely used in academic research as they lack a clear definition. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2024/02/inside-the-labour-lefts-split
[2] E.g. in Mudde, Cas. The far right today. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
[3] Applebaum, Anne. Gulag: a history of the Soviet camps. Penguin UK, 2004.
[4] Brown, Kerry. China. Polity Histories, 2020, p. 51-71.
[5] See: Stone, William F. “The myth of left-wing authoritarianism.” Political Psychology 2.3/4 (1980): 3-19.
[6] Short, Philip. Pol Pot: Anatomy of a nightmare. Macmillan, 2005.
[7] Brown, Roland Elliott. Godless utopia. FUEL, 2019.
[8] Roberts, Sean R. “The war on the Uyghurs.” The war on the Uyghurs. Manchester University Press, 2021.
[9] Kraushaar, Wolfgang. Die Bombe im Jüdischen Gemeindehaus. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2005.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This Explainer was uploaded on 8 January 2025.
