From its inception, the Left has proclaimed itself the champion of freedom. Its rhetoric is filled with promises of liberation, equality, and fraternity. Yet history reveals a darker truth: whenever Leftist movements seize power, their definition of “freedom” collapses into coercion, censorship, and violence. The banner of liberty becomes a mask for tyranny.
The French Revolution: Liberty Betrayed
The French Revolution declared its creed as liberté, égalité, fraternité. But when the Jacobins gained control, liberty was swiftly redefined. Those who dissented were branded enemies of the people. Through the machinery of the French State, the guillotine became the instrument of “freedom.” The Revolution’s rhetoric promised universal rights, but its practice was the mass slaughter of anyone who refused ideological conformity.
Lenin and the Press
Vladimir Lenin, before seizing power, spoke of freedom of the press. Yet once the Bolsheviks controlled Russia, the press was muzzled. Independent voices were silenced, newspapers shut down, and censorship institutionalised. Freedom of speech was tolerated only until it threatened Bolshevik dominance. Lenin’s “freedom” was conditional: you were free to agree, but not free to dissent.
Rosa Luxemburg’s Contradictions
Rosa Luxemburg, a figure often romanticised by the Left, illustrates the same duplicity. In 1914, she wrote passionately about the necessity of freedom of the press, arguing that liberty must include the right to criticise and oppose. Yet by 1919, amidst revolutionary fervour, she advocated restrictions on that very freedom, subordinating liberty to the demands of socialist revolution. The principle was abandoned when it conflicted with ideological expedience.
The New Left and Repressive Tolerance
Defenders of the Left often dismiss these examples as “authoritarian aberrations.” But the hypocrisy persists even in the democratic West. In the 1960s, the New Left demanded freedom—sexual liberation, freedom of speech, freedom from conformity. Yet today, those same intellectual descendants are at the forefront of censorship.
Herbert Marcuse’s infamous essay Repressive Tolerance laid the groundwork. He argued that tolerance should be extended to the Left but denied to the Right. In practice, this meant censoring conservative voices while excusing Leftist violence. Marcuse’s doctrine became the intellectual justification for “cancel culture” and pre-censorship of opponents. Freedom was redefined as the freedom to silence.
Lenin’s Walls and the Utopian Mirage
Lenin himself believed the Bolsheviks would need walls—not to keep people in, but to keep outsiders out. He imagined Russia as a utopia that the world would flock to. Instead, it became a dystopia that millions tried to escape. The walls became prisons, not fortresses of liberty. The dream of universal freedom collapsed into gulags and famine.
Naivety or Malice?
Perhaps this duplicity is not always malicious. Perhaps Leftist thinkers genuinely believe that every rational person must share their narrow definition of liberty. But history shows the consequences: mountains of skulls, rivers of blood, and societies crushed under the weight of ideological purity. People do not want what they are selling, and so coercion becomes the only means of enforcement.
The Pattern of Repression
The pattern is unmistakable:
Leftist Freedom Promises vs Historical Outcomes
Click to view
Across centuries, Leftist movements have promised liberty but delivered repression. Their “freedom” is consistently conditional, selective, and duplicitous—granted only to those who conform, withdrawn from those who dissent.
Conclusion
The Left’s doctrines, whether revolutionary or progressive, lead not to liberation but to repression, misery, and death. Their freedom is duplicitous: a mask that conceals coercion. True freedom requires the right to speak, to dissent, to resist—and that is precisely what Leftist movements, past and present, cannot abide.
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE
The French Revolution declared its creed as liberté, égalité, fraternité. But when the Jacobins gained control, liberty was swiftly redefined. Those who dissented were branded enemies of the people. Through the machinery of the French State, the guillotine became the instrument of “freedom.” The Revolution’s rhetoric promised universal rights, but its practice was the mass slaughter of anyone who refused ideological conformity.
Lenin and the Press
Vladimir Lenin, before seizing power, spoke of freedom of the press. Yet once the Bolsheviks controlled Russia, the press was muzzled. Independent voices were silenced, newspapers shut down, and censorship institutionalised. Freedom of speech was tolerated only until it threatened Bolshevik dominance. Lenin’s “freedom” was conditional: you were free to agree, but not free to dissent.
Rosa Luxemburg’s Contradictions
Rosa Luxemburg, a figure often romanticised by the Left, illustrates the same duplicity. In 1914, she wrote passionately about the necessity of freedom of the press, arguing that liberty must include the right to criticise and oppose. Yet by 1919, amidst revolutionary fervour, she advocated restrictions on that very freedom, subordinating liberty to the demands of socialist revolution. The principle was abandoned when it conflicted with ideological expedience.
The New Left and Repressive Tolerance
Defenders of the Left often dismiss these examples as “authoritarian aberrations.” But the hypocrisy persists even in the democratic West. In the 1960s, the New Left demanded freedom—sexual liberation, freedom of speech, freedom from conformity. Yet today, those same intellectual descendants are at the forefront of censorship.
Herbert Marcuse’s infamous essay Repressive Tolerance laid the groundwork. He argued that tolerance should be extended to the Left but denied to the Right. In practice, this meant censoring conservative voices while excusing Leftist violence. Marcuse’s doctrine became the intellectual justification for “cancel culture” and pre-censorship of opponents. Freedom was redefined as the freedom to silence.
Lenin’s Walls and the Utopian Mirage
Lenin himself believed the Bolsheviks would need walls—not to keep people in, but to keep outsiders out. He imagined Russia as a utopia that the world would flock to. Instead, it became a dystopia that millions tried to escape. The walls became prisons, not fortresses of liberty. The dream of universal freedom collapsed into gulags and famine.
Naivety or Malice?
Perhaps this duplicity is not always malicious. Perhaps Leftist thinkers genuinely believe that every rational person must share their narrow definition of liberty. But history shows the consequences: mountains of skulls, rivers of blood, and societies crushed under the weight of ideological purity. People do not want what they are selling, and so coercion becomes the only means of enforcement.
The Pattern of Repression
The pattern is unmistakable:
- Freedom promised, repression delivered.
- Liberty proclaimed, censorship imposed.
- Equality declared, conformity demanded.
Leftist Freedom Promises vs Historical Outcomes
Click to view
Across centuries, Leftist movements have promised liberty but delivered repression. Their “freedom” is consistently conditional, selective, and duplicitous—granted only to those who conform, withdrawn from those who dissent.
Conclusion
The Left’s doctrines, whether revolutionary or progressive, lead not to liberation but to repression, misery, and death. Their freedom is duplicitous: a mask that conceals coercion. True freedom requires the right to speak, to dissent, to resist—and that is precisely what Leftist movements, past and present, cannot abide.
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.