Skip to main content

Debating violence and ideology across the world: Myths and realities of the Left

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak 
Across the world, leftist politics is often portrayed as inherently violent. From the United States to Britain, Europe, and India, political establishments and sections of the media have repeatedly framed left-wing ideology as extremist. This perception has been reinforced by ruling parties across the political spectrum—whether conservative or liberal—who frequently criticise the left while struggling to address the economic and social challenges facing working people.
In the United States, the Republican Party under Donald Trump has called for a crackdown on the radical left, while in Britain, left-wing activism has faced suppression in connection with international issues such as the Israel–Palestine conflict. In India, both the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other mainstream parties have described left-wing politics as anti-national, with terms like “urban Naxals” used for intellectuals and activists who question state power. Globally, the left is often accused of being aligned with violence, extremism, or disruptive politics.
At the same time, questions remain over whether this perception reflects reality. Data on political violence suggests that right-wing groups are often responsible for a significant share of extremist activity. A Cato Institute policy analysis (March 2025) found that in the United States, religious extremists, white supremacists, and right-wing groups have been responsible for most acts of terrorism, while left-wing violence has been rare. Similar trends are observed in parts of Britain and Europe, where violence is more commonly linked to white supremacist groups or to social unrest driven by economic marginalisation.
Looking historically, large-scale violence has often been tied to imperialism, religious conflict, and wars driven by economic or political domination. Critics of capitalism argue that systemic inequality and state power are maintained through both structural and direct violence. Proponents of leftist politics contend that their ideology is rooted in principles of equality, social justice, and collective emancipation rather than violence. Classical leftist thinkers such as Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky emphasised class consciousness and collective struggle, cautioning against individual acts of terrorism, which they argued undermined mass movements.
Nonetheless, instances of left-wing groups resorting to violence do exist, particularly in response to state repression or when operating in contexts of deep social conflict. In India, for example, Maoist groups engaged in armed struggle have been described as a major internal security challenge. This has further complicated the perception of the left in the public sphere.
The broader debate, therefore, concerns how violence is defined and which forms of political action are labelled extremist. While ruling elites and governments often associate the left with violent tendencies, left-wing advocates argue that violence is more systematically embedded in capitalist and right-wing structures of power.
Ultimately, whether leftist ideology breeds violence is a contested question. What is clear is that violence—whether from the state, right-wing groups, or insurgent movements—remains a recurring feature of political life. Any meaningful resolution lies in addressing the underlying inequalities and exclusions that fuel conflict, and in recognising that all ideologies, under certain conditions, can generate both peaceful and violent expressions.

Comments

TRENDING

BRICS ends, but Bangladesh's empty chair says more than any declaration

By Nava Thakuria  The 18th BRICS Leaders' Summit, hosted by India at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi on 12-13 September 2026, has concluded with leaders formally adopting the New Delhi Declaration. The gathering, themed "Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability," drew Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other leaders of the now 11-member bloc, along with heads of partner organisations such as ASEAN, the African Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. Diplomats had worked through the final hours to bridge differences — notably between Iran and the UAE over West Asian tensions — before the declaration was signed.

Swaminarayan, untouchability and the 'we are not Hindu' argument

By Rajiv Shah   Following my blog on why the Eiffel Tower authorities should take all the blame for giving in to the Swaminarayan sadhus ’ bizarre demand to “invisibilise” women, including its female staff, during their visit to the internationally renowned Paris tourist centre on September 5, an interesting comment by one of the top academics drew my attention to something I vaguely knew about one of India’s most powerful and richest religious sects.

BAPS, the Eiffel Tower and the curious silence on secularism

By Rajiv Shah   I was a little surprised to see how some of those whom I respect for taking a firm stand on patriarchal issues reacted to the manner in which they responded to the recent incident in Paris, in which women employees of the Eiffel Tower were asked to remain "invisible" on September 5 when 100 BAPS sadhus visited one of the world's top tourist destinations.