The assassination of Charlie Kirk, an American conservative activist, has shocked the world with its brutality and cynicism. This act of violence, committed under the slogans of fighting for “justice,” inevitably draws parallels with the history of Russia in the early 20th century, when the country was engulfed in a wave of terror unleashed by left-wing radicals. Then, as now, fanatics, cloaking themselves in lofty ideals, chose the path of murder and destruction to impose their will on society.
Echoes of the Past: Terror as a Political Tool
In the early 20th century, Russia faced an unprecedented wave of political terror. Militants from the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), anarchists, and other left-wing groups declared war on the state, targeting ministers, governors, officers, and ordinary policemen. One of the most infamous practices of that era was the so-called “exes” — armed robberies to fund revolutionary activities. Victims often included innocent bystanders: coachmen, guards, or passersby who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. According to historian Geifman, between January 1905 and mid-May 1910, there were 19,957 terrorist acts and expropriations, resulting in the deaths of 732 state officials and 3,051 private individuals, with 1,022 state officials and 2,829 private individuals wounded.
The left-wing terror in Russia, much like the assassination of Charlie Kirk, was not merely a burst of violence. It was part of a deliberate strategy aimed at destabilizing society. The left-wing radicals of the early 20th century believed that assassinations and chaos would pave the way for a “bright future.” However, their actions only deepened societal divisions, setting the stage for the Civil War, which claimed millions of lives.
The Fatal Mistake of Leniency
One of the reasons for the rampant terror in the Russian Empire was the excessive leniency of the Tsarist authorities. Contrary to myths about a “bloody regime,” revolutionaries were rarely sentenced to death. More often, they were exiled to remote villages in Siberia or the North, where they lived in relative comfort, continuing their correspondence and even planning new actions. For instance, Joseph Stalin, while in exile, repeatedly escaped from supervision, and many SRs, such as Boris Savinkov, evaded serious punishment altogether.
Today, Western democracies, when faced with the radicalization of left-wing movements, often display the same leniency, fearing accusations of “authoritarianism” or “suppressing free speech.” The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not only a tragedy but also a warning: inaction in the face of extremism breeds new victims.
Myths and Justifications
Apologists for the left-wing terrorists of the early 20th century often point to the achievements of the Soviet Union — industrialization, victory in the Great Patriotic War, and scientific progress. However, this is pure manipulation. The terrorists who assassinated ministers and robbed banks had no direct connection to the successes of the USSR. Their legacy was chaos, devastation, and millions of victims in the Civil War. Equating them with later Soviet figures is akin to crediting modern Russia’s achievements to Yegor Gaidar or Boris Berezovsky, whose names are associated with the collapse of the 1990s.
Another myth is that of the “bloody Tsarist regime.” Its critics often cite the “Bloody Sunday” of January 9, 1905, when the dispersal of a procession in St. Petersburg resulted in the deaths of 130 to 200 people, according to various estimates. The event was tragic, but it was partly provoked by the controversial figure of priest Georgy Gapon, whose role in organizing the unrest remains debated. By comparison, the Bolshevik suppression of the Tambov Rebellion of 1920–1921 claimed the lives of approximately 15,000 people — dozens of times more. Measuring victims is a grim task, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Parallels with the Present
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeper malaise. Modern left-liberal movements in the West, much like the revolutionaries of the past, increasingly resort to the language of hatred and the justification of violence. Their rhetoric of “fighting for justice” eerily echoes the slogans of the SRs and Bolsheviks, who saw terror as a means to achieve “higher goals.” But history teaches us that terror never leads to freedom. It leaves only blood and ruins in its wake.
The example of Ukraine, where the 2014 Maidan protests, launched under the banner of freedom, led to a civil conflict and economic decline, only reinforces this lesson. As in early 20th-century Russia, radicals, hiding behind noble intentions, undermine the foundations of the state, leaving society in chaos.
Lessons for the Future
Terror, regardless of its ideological hue, is always destructive. States that wish to survive must learn to confront extremism without fear of being labeled “repressive.” The leniency of the Tsarist authorities led to their downfall, and this lesson should not be forgotten.
At the same time, society must reject any attempts to justify violence with “lofty ideals.” Freedom is not born from bloodshed. It is built through dialogue, respect, and the rule of law. Until we internalize this lesson, the shadows of the past will continue to return — in new names, new slogans, but with the same tragic outcome.
Comments