With the collapse of communism in the late 1980s, the threat from left-wing terrorism receded in the West. Without the ideological authority and political support derived from the Soviet Union and its allies, the succession of violent Marxist-Leninist movements seen in Europe and elsewhere for half a century largely withered away.
Today, nominally LWT groups still account for approximately 5% of attacks globally. However, these are overwhelmingly concentrated in Latin America and, to a lesser extent, India and the Philippines, and the groups responsible are primarily driven by a combination of criminality and local political and social grievances, rather than a commitment to revolutionary left-wing ideology. A handful of anarchist or Marxist groups remain active in Southern Europe, but attacks are infrequent and rarely result in casualties.
In the 1990s, a blend of environmental and animal rights concerns, along with anarchist and anti-globalisation/anti-capitalism sentiment largely supplanted communism as the foremost animating issues in XLW politics in Europe and America. However, in recent years, there has been a rise in LWT activity focusing on anti-fascism and human rights, in response to both the growth in RWT and perceived social hostility to minority groups and migrants.
While the United Kingdom experienced little LWT during the Cold War relative to its European neighbours, there have been numerous incidents of unlawful action by LWT groups since 2000. However, most of these resulted in no casualties and were not treated as acts of terrorism. Current Home Office reporting makes little mention of LWT, indicating that it is not presently assessed to represent a significant national security threat. The number of individuals in custody for terror offences who hold left-wing views is estimated to be minute[1] and Prevent (the governments counter-radicalisation scheme) deals overwhelmingly with concerns related to right-wing or Islamist terrorism.
The virtual absence of LWT from national security discourse in the United Kingdom is arguably based on an accurate reading of the far-lefts currently limited appetite for deadly violence. In the early 2000s, animal rights activists were tied to a series of under-vehicle and parcel-borne bombs which targeted, inter alia, individuals and businesses involved in agriculture, field sports, and animal breeding, resulting in several injuries. However, for the past decade, the modus operandi of LWT has shifted away from violence against people and towards intimidation, or disruptive direct action or attacks on property, as seen with the 2013 destruction of an under-construction police facility in Portishead by the anarchist group Angry Foxes Cell.
However, while LWT actors in Britain are not assessed to represent a significant terror threat at present, rising political polarisation and increasing evidence of potentially catastrophic climate change could precipitate the re-emergence of LWT groups committed to violent direct action. In the USA, increasing partisanship since the 2016 presidential elections has invigorated violence-prone anarchist and anti-fascist movements in the country. In June 2017, a long-time left-wing activist attacked a Republican Party practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game, injuring six, including a congressman.
While Britain has avoided comparable incidents, there is a small but realistic possibility that worsening political divisions over Brexit and other issues could see radical left-wing engage in violence against political opponents. Further attacks by right-wing extremists on left-wing targets – eminently probable – would increase the likelihood of such a scenario.
Arguably of greater concern is the possibility that increasing alarm over climate change and the perceived failure of government and others to adequately address it could persuade radical environmental activists to embark on a campaign of violence to draw attention to the issue or influence policy. Environmental activists engaged in direct action have historically largely eschewed violence against people in favour of vandalism, criminal damage and the sabotage of machinery. Nonetheless, there are several exceptions, both in Britain and abroad.
Despite this, indiscriminate mass casualty attacks by LWTs are highly unlikely given prevailing views in LWT circles. While these groups have historically committed mass casualty attacks, notably the 1972 Lod Airport Massacre, this was exceptional even by the standards of the violent communist terrorist organisations active in the 1970s/80s. Offences against property without the intent to cause loss of life are the most likely manifestation of LWT. However, targeted attacks against symbolic individuals or institutions are also a realistic possibility. While an assortment of Methodology, including explosives, firearms, improvised weapons, or even biotoxins could be used by LWT groups, they are unlikely to be employed with the intent to cause indiscriminate casualties.
The range of targets potentially at risk is extensive. In addition to political figures, commercial entities have frequently been targeted in the past by LWT groups. Those involved in extractive industries, energy production, agriculture or construction are likely to be priority targets for environmentally focused LWTs, with large corporates, financial institutions and science and technology firms also perceived as legitimate targets for a range of LWT groups. Government employees and facilities could also be targeted, due to the governments tacit complicity in perceived transgressions and the enduring influence of anarchist narratives on left-wing extremism.
While the development of a threat from the far-left comparable with that posed by right-wing or Islamist terrorism seems improbable at present, current trends point towards increasing levels of political polarisation and disillusionment. Combined with increasing public acceptance of the urgency of action on climate change, it is not inconceivable that a revival in LWT could occur in the medium-term. For the insurance industry, this would pose many of the same challenges seen with the intensification of the RWT threat, insofar as it would significantly expand the range of exposures at risk and could increase the overall frequency of attacks.
[1] Based on analysis of Home Office statistics.