Are there any historical examples of liberal or left-wing groups engaging in violent activism?
Executive summary
Yes. Historical examples of liberal or left-wing groups using violence span decades and continents, from 1970s U.S. and European urban guerrillas to later eco‑direct action arson campaigns; scholars and government agencies document groups such as the Weather Underground, Red Army Faction, Earth and Animal Liberation Fronts, and a range of anarchist cells engaged in arson, bombings, robberies and shootings [1] [2] [3] [4]. At the same time, multiple contemporary studies and news analyses find that left‑wing violence is generally less frequent and less deadly than right‑wing and Islamist violence in many recent periods, though reporting and coding choices affect those comparisons [5] [3] [6].
1. Violent currents in the Cold War era: organized urban guerrillas and “New Left” terror
Left‑wing terrorism was a prominent phenomenon from the late 1960s through the 1980s: scholars describe a wave of leftist groups willing to use violence—bank robberies, bombings, kidnappings and murders—across Western Europe and the U.S., including the Weather Underground in the United States and the Italian Red Brigades and Germany’s RAF in Europe [7] [2]. Contemporary summaries and historical overviews note that many of these groups arose from student movements and anti‑imperialist currents and that the pattern of left‑wing violence was a defining security problem in that era [7] [2].
2. Eco‑direct action and property‑focused campaigns: ALF and ELF
From the 1990s into the 2000s, specialized single‑issue groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) carried out arson and vandalism campaigns that targeted property—commercial labs, vehicles, and facilities—more often than people, and therefore generated relatively few fatalities but considerable property damage and law‑enforcement attention [3] [1]. News analyses explicitly cite these movements as historical examples of left‑wing extremist tactics that prioritized economic disruption and symbolic destruction over mass casualty attacks [3].
3. Anarchists, direct action and episodic violence in Europe
European authorities and research bodies document repeated anarchist and left‑wing actions involving arson, improvised devices and riots—examples include car and infrastructure arsons in Germany, rioting at the 2015 ECB opening in Frankfurt, and violence at the 2017 G20 in Hamburg—showing left‑wing violent extremism remains a security concern in some EU countries [4] [8]. Europol and national intelligence services characterize the left‑wing scene as heterogeneous: many actors eschew lethal tactics, but subgroups and clandestine cells have used violent means and sometimes focus attacks on police and symbols of the state [4] [9].
4. The U.S. picture: episodic revival, decentralized actors, and scholarly caveats
U.S.-focused research and government commentary find that left‑wing violent extremism has a long history (including the Weather Underground and other 1970s groups) and that more recent periods feature localized, event‑driven violence by anarchist or autonomous groups; government analyses warn such actors could pose growing threats in some contexts, even as overall fatality counts remain lower than right‑wing violence across many long timeframes [1] [10] [5]. At the same time, analysts caution that measurement, coding decisions and small sample sizes can make trends look different: some recent reports showing a rise in left‑wing incidents sparked debate about whether the increase is meaningful or an artifact of how incidents were classified [6] [11] [12].
5. Comparative data: less frequent but not absent — and methodology matters
Large comparative datasets and center analyses show that left‑wing‑associated acts tend to be less likely to be deadly compared with right‑wing or Islamist actors in many datasets, but patterns vary by region and era: one University of Maryland/START study found left‑linked radicals are less likely to be violent in the datasets they examined, while other work—such as CSIS analyses referenced in reporting—saw increases in left‑wing attacks in certain recent windows, prompting debate about coding and scope [5] [12] [13]. Media and fact‑checking outlets stress that no single study resolves the question and that “left,” “right” and “jihadist” labels do not map cleanly onto mainstream political parties or movements [6] [5].
6. What this historical record implies for today’s debate
Historical and institutional sources confirm that left‑wing groups have used violence—sometimes lethal, often property‑focused—across eras and geographies, and that modern security assessments treat violent left‑wing extremism as part of a broader spectrum of threats [7] [4] [10]. Simultaneously, multiple analyses underline that right‑wing and Islamist actors have accounted for a larger share of recent fatalities in many contexts, and commentators warn against using selective incidents to justify singling out one side without careful, transparent data work [3] [6] [11].
Limitations: available sources do not provide an exhaustive timeline of every incident, and trends depend heavily on which datasets and coding rules researchers use [6] [11].