By Santosh Kumar Mohapatra
Few words in contemporary politics are abused as casually as the term ‘Leftist.’ It has become a convenient political weapon, used to silence rather than to debate. Today, anyone who questions the government, criticizes the concentration of wealth, exposes corporate excesses, or speaks for workers, farmers, minorities, or the marginalised is instantly branded a ‘Leftist.’ In many circles, the words Leftist, Communist, and Marxist are thrown around as insults, often by people who have little understanding of what these terms actually mean.
This intellectual laziness has impoverished public discourse. Instead of confronting ideas, many prefer attaching labels. Instead of answering arguments, they attack identities. Democracy, however, cannot survive on slogans. It survives only when ideas are examined with reason rather than prejudice.
The irony is that a person who criticizes injustice or demands accountability need not belong to any political ideology. Such a person may simply possess a conscience. Compassion, empathy, and a commitment to fairness do not automatically make one a Communist or even a Leftist. Throughout history, reformers, writers, economists, judges, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens have challenged injustice not because they subscribed to a particular ideology, but because they believed that power must always remain accountable.
Equally surprising is the widespread belief that Karl Marx invented Left-wing ideology. He did not. Marx was one of its greatest thinkers, but the idea of the political Left existed long before him. The origin of the terms Left and Right dates back to the French Revolution of 1789. During the debates in the French National Assembly over the powers of the monarchy, those who wished to preserve the authority of the King sat to the President’s right, while those seeking greater democracy, equality, and political reform occupied the left. From this simple seating arrangement emerged one of the most enduring political distinctions in modern history. The Right gradually came to represent the defence of tradition, hierarchy, and established authority, while the Left became associated with reform, equality, and the redistribution of political and economic power.
Over the centuries, these broad political traditions evolved into many different streams of thought. The various political parties came to be described as democratic left, centre-left, far-left, right-wing, centre-right, and far-right. Although this has not been conclusively established, some studies suggest that children with higher intellectual ability are more likely to be inclined toward Left-wing ideals. Some researchers have even argued that a tendency toward Left-wing values may have an innate or inborn component.
Yet one misconception continues to dominate public discussion—the belief that Leftism and Communism are identical. Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy and analytical framework developed in the 19th century by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A central theme of Marxism is class struggle. It identifies a fundamental conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marx argued that workers are paid less than the actual value created by their labour. The difference, known as surplus value, is appropriated by capitalists as profit and forms the basis of capitalist wealth accumulation.
Russian and Chinese communism both originated from Marxism but evolved into different ideological traditions. Russian Communism, or Marxism–Leninism, was developed by Vladimir Lenin, who emphasised a disciplined vanguard party to lead the industrial working class in a socialist revolution. Chinese Communism, or Maoism, was developed by Mao Zedong, who adapted Marxism–Leninism to China’s agrarian conditions by making the peasantry the main revolutionary force.
But Marxism is only one branch of the vast Left tradition. Leftist philosophy is far broader than Marxism or Communism. It encompasses diverse schools of thought united by certain common values—social justice, equality of opportunity, protection of workers’ rights, reduction of excessive economic inequality, and the belief that economic growth should benefit society as a whole rather than a privileged few.
Within this broad family are social democrats who support regulated capitalism with a strong welfare state; democratic socialists who advocate democratic public ownership of key sectors; socialists who favour greater social control over essential industries; anarchists who oppose both concentrated state and corporate power, and Communists who envision a classless society beyond capitalism.
Before using political labels as weapons, we should first understand what those labels mean. Democracies flourish when ideas compete, not when identities are condemned. The true test of political maturity is not how quickly we label those who disagree with us, but how honestly we engage with their arguments. In an age overwhelmed by propaganda, misinformation, and ideological polarization, understanding must triumph over prejudice, and reason must prevail over rhetoric.
The writer is an Odisha-based economist and columnist.
