Why the Left is not by definition ‘right’: 3 historical examples

Traditionally, the Left claims that it supports the weak, champions the case of the oppressed and carries the banner of universal values, something their right-wing counterparts do not – or so they always believe.

For the sake of this blog, I will boil everything down to a rather reductionist dichotomy, but that is what tends to happen more and more, unfortunately. Nuance seems to have disappeared and you can see it unfolding before our very eyes. If you live in the West and you identify as left-wing, you must be against Israel and for the Palestinians, there is no other way. Simultaneously, you should support Israel more and more, if you consider yourself to be right-wing or conservative. Of course, I am not insinuating that everyone is this rigid, but when people speak out in public and it is known what their political background is, the entire conflict that grips us so as Jews and Israelis, has become polarized. It is a shame, because nuance is necessary. You can be left-wing and pro-Israel – there are plenty of right-wingers who detest Israel, so why not? However, it seems that far-left extremists have taken hold of the Left and through the use of dogmas and slogans that are repeated like a monotonous mantra are forcing you to conform. A good left-winger is anti-Israel. A good left-winger should demand that Israel be dismantled and replaced. If you have doubts about this, we will not debate you, nay, we will ostracize and vilify you.

By offering three historical examples, I will show that nuance remains important, something the Left, but the Right as well, seem to be averse to more and more.

The Holodomor

American historian Anne Applebaum wrote a book about the Holodomor a couple of years ago. Titled Red Famine it thoroughly researches the period of mass starvation in Ukraine that occurred in the early 1930s. Through extensive use and critical analysis of a multitude of primary sources and secondary literature, Applebaum weaves together a strong analysis of this tragic ordeal in Ukraine’s history, a deliberate attack by the Soviet Union on Ukrainian peasants. By seizing the 1932 crop, the Soviet Union created a man-made famine, it was not the consequence of bad weather. That did not mean, however, that the Soviet Union would not launch a massive propaganda campaign, meant to silence voices willing to discuss it.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Applebaum’s work is that she shows how aggressively the Soviet Union acted to bury evidence of the Holodomor. From subsidizing the lavish lifestyle of a renowned British correspondent living in Moscow during the 1930s – who in turn would use his pen to deny any evidence of a horrific famine taking place in Ukraine in a British newspaper – to a massive propaganda campaign during the Cold War that for decades would denounce the Holodomor as a fiction, a devious tool used by anti-Soviet Ukrainian fascists. Applebaum shows the reader that this campaign was shockingly effective in the West, by offering an incredible example involving US public broadcaster PBS in the 1990s. As she describes, PBS was reluctant to air a documentary about the Holodomor, because they believed it was ‘too right-wing, too conservative’ – it eventually would air the documentary, followed by a panel discussion. This shows how effective it is to slander your opponent as ‘right-wing’, as in the West many of us believe that right-wing is more likely to be wrong, while left-wing seems to be on the ‘right side’. Not surprisingly, Russia has been using the same tactic against Ukraine before their invasion, during the invasion and up to today in their war with Ukraine. It insists that it is in the process of ‘de-nazifying’ Ukraine, without ever truly showing us evidence of all these Nazis they believe are running the show. I am not denying that there are Ukrainian neo-Nazis, but there are neo-Nazis in the US as well, even in the Netherlands. But that does not mean that they constitute a majority or run the country. But it is still an effective tool. While many people in the Netherlands have shown support for Ukraine and government institutions have pledged solidarity as well, university campuses were virtually devoid of protests. Perhaps, this has to do with the fact that Ukraine is not considered worthy of left-wing support?

New Guinea and the abandonment of the Papuans

The next example is from the early 1960s. After the Second World War, decolonization would take center stage. It was time and it was a good thing, the colonial experiment had failed. Some colonies gained independence rather peacefully, while others were forced to fight bloody wars. Indonesian independence was an example that fell into the latter category. It has always been an interest of mine, as my grandmother on my mother’s side is Eurasian – ‘Indisch’ is the Dutch term. So, in 1949, after the Dutch government had tried to annul the independence proclaimed by Sukarno, the Indonesian leader, in 1945, Indonesian independence was finally accepted. After four years of war, the Netherlands realized it could not be denied. At first, Indonesia would become part of a federation with the Netherlands, but they opted out of this system within a few years to become fully independent. But after independence, the Netherlands managed to hold on to one last colonial possession in the eastern part of the archipelago: New Guinea. After 1949, it was called Dutch New Guinea. In a bid to preserve some colonial prestige and show that it could do it ‘right’ this time, the Dutch set to work in New Guinea, determined to develop it into a modern success – the fact that the territory was rich in resources did help, naturally. But Sukarno would have none of it. He felt cheated and was determined to get the last part of the archipelago that he believed belonged to Indonesia. While it would seem that Sukarno was right, the reality is quite different. I will admit, I can understand the success of Sukarno and acknowledge his charisma and passion for the Indonesian republic he helped create, but I am not an admirer. Sukarno was a man who cooperated with Japan during its occupation of the Dutch East Indies, believing that they would help him achieve independence. In order to prove his support, he helped provide large numbers of Indonesian laborers for the Japanese war machine. Many of them would perish as a consequence of dire working conditions. But, most importantly, Sukarno knew very well that New Guinea was inhabited by Papuans, a people who do not consider themselves Indonesians. In the end, the territorial size of Indonesia is a Dutch creation. Until the arrival of the Europeans, the archipelago was fragmented, consisting of various polities. The Dutch would conquer them all and eventually create the Dutch East Indies. Now, when the local population wanted to free itself of Dutch colonialism, no referendums were held to find out what all the people wanted: did they wish to continue together or go their own way? On the contrary, the colonial construct needed to be kept intact.

Before I digress even further, I will return to Sukarno. He was charismatic, media savvy, and he went on the offensive. On the one hand, he sent Indonesian infiltrators into New Guinea to attack Dutch targets and foster Papuan insurgency, which failed miserably. On the other hand, he went on a PR campaign in the West, to stress the need for full decolonization. The Dutch needed to relinquish their claim on New Guinea and hand it over to Indonesia. The latter was very effective. Decolonization was a good thing and I am not being sarcastic. It would be an end to oppression, no more European meddling, something that understandably resonated very well with Western left-wingers. The American government, despite the Dutch being their staunch ally during the Second World War made it clear that they would not come to the Netherlands’ aid, in case of war with Indonesia. How could they? Indonesia was a non-aligned country and the Soviet Union was styling itself as the protector of the poor, oppressed masses of the world against the capitalists and imperialists. Moreover, the US itself was a colony that had freed itself from British tyranny – only to continue by expanding from its original thirteen colonies all the way to Hawai’i, through a combination of buying and conquering land. With such credentials, it would be uncomfortable to back the Netherlands in a future colonial war. Eventually, tensions would reach a boiling point and a crisis was averted at the last minute by a diplomatic agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands – the Indonesians had prepared to launch a massive invasion of New Guinea, with Soviet military support. Dutch left-wingers were overjoyed. For months members of the Labor Party had staged protests against the intransigence of the Dutch government. In their view, the Netherlands should relinquish control of its last colony and hand it over to its rightful owner, Indonesia. They even gathered 250,000 signatures demanding negotiations with Indonesia. This was the ‘right’ thing to do. However, the Dutch government had promised the Papuans independence. The latter had a name for their country: West Papua. But, the left-wing protesters fell for Sukarno’s message and supported his narrative. They must have felt very good about doing Indonesia’s bidding. None of them paid attention to the wishes of the Papuans and the Dutch government broke its promise to them, because it realized that the US would not support them. Sukarno got what he wanted, named West Papua ‘Irian Jaya’ and started oppressing the Papuans, which continues to this day. Even flying the West Papuan flag will put you in prison for a number of years.

“You are old, we are young, Mao Zedong!”

The above slogan was chanted by none other than German student protesters in 1969. But this was not in the DDR, no, this was in West Berlin, a protest against the Social Democratic Party. A famous left-wing icon, Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong captivated millions worldwide. He was a man of charisma, strong intellect, and the writer of a very successful revolutionary tract, called The Little Red Book. In her book Maoism, British historian Julia Lovell analyzes the power of Mao Zedong’s thoughts on people and movements worldwide. In one chapter, she describes how students in the West became enamored with his writings, carrying his red booklet, quoting from it – ‘a revolution is not a dinner party’ – and using him as their symbol in their idealistic fight against the ‘corrupt, capitalist Western way of life’. Of course, capitalism has plenty of flaws, but these students were looking for something better, a gateway to utopia. Inspired by the 1968 Paris protests, disenchanted with conservative elites at home, and angry about the Vietnam War, these students and activists decided to embrace Maoism, as the key to changing the situation at home. And in Mao’s China, they believed they had found it. Of course, it was all second-hand, virtually none of them had ever been there. Their image of China was the product of a well-crafted and state-sponsored campaign of presenting China as a socialist Valhalla, something several Westerners had contributed to. One of them was American writer Edgar Snow, who would offer the PRC a great boon by writing a puff piece called Red Star over China. In addition, renowned British economist Joan Robinson had visited China and was offered a carefully guided tour, showcasing Communist ‘achievements’. She returned home and concluded that China had found the key to success.

So, China’s image was one of success. And the Cultural Revolution was romanticized as being a way of rebelling against the establishment. It appealed to students, activists, and radicals of all stripes. But while these students in Germany had the freedom to protest and shout at and ridicule their own leaders, this was not an option in China. Moreover, even those closest to Mao needed to tread carefully, as they could be purged at any time. Some students did visit China during the great chaos of the Cultural Revolution on carefully choreographed tours. As Lovell describes, a group of French students burst into tears upon entering China in 1967, stating that it was ‘too beautiful to be in China during a revolution’.

Time for some nuance

So, I believe these examples show how left-wingers can be just as misguided as right-wingers. And yet, for some reason, left-wing campaigns always seem to have the aura of ‘right’ in the West. I have no issue with left-wing views, in many ways they have brought us benefits. Left-wing protests have led to the 40-hour workweek, minimum wages, benefits, and collective bargaining. Most left-wingers do support human dignity and support for those who are struggling in life. But left-wingers are not, by definition, ‘right’. The same applies to the Israel-Hamas war. You can be pro-Palestinian, you can be critical of Israel. But if you march to the drum of organizations like BDS and Samidoun, I think it is time to pause and reflect. If you are not an anarchist, communist or Islamist, then why are you joining protests that call for the eradication of Israel and urge to ‘globalize the intifada’? Why are you joining and even defending the late bloody architect of October 7 Yahya Sinwar, who among the Palestinians is known as ‘the butcher of Khan Younis’ and ‘the Man of Twelve’, or the warlord/drug trafficker Hassan Nasrallah? If you join in and shout that the time has come for ‘revolution’, do you honestly know what that means? When you are joining a protest flanked by Western Abu Obeida copycats, is that really something with which you wish to be associated? And finally, while you say that you are supporting the Palestinian people, why then can you not denounce Hamas? As you are practising your democratic right to protest, Hamas has worked since 2006 to crush all dissent in Gaza – and has largely succeeded. Its system is totalitarian, certainly not democratic.

So, to those left-wingers who have now chosen to back the Palestinians wholeheartedly, I would advise you to scrutinize your opinions thoroughly and apply some much-needed nuance. If not, you might wake up one day, decades from now, and realize that you were someone’s ‘useful idiot’.