The European Left today is undergoing a paradoxical resurgence. Amid the horror of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, broad coalitions of leftist parties, social movements, and grassroots organisations have gained renewed visibility and moral authority, particularly in comparison with the moral decay of European ruling elites and their shift towards the right in an effort to counter the rise of right-wing fascism. Especially among Generation Z, opposition to both the resurgence of fascist politics in Europe and the violence of Israel – backed by the United States and its European allies – has translated into intensified activism and transnational solidarity campaigns. This unifying force, centred on the liberation of Palestine and now widely perceived as a universal moral compass, has generated momentum not witnessed for decades. Yet, as this article argues, the European Left is approaching a potential crisis that recalls the historic rupture associated with the collapse of socialist credibility in the mid-twentieth century.
That earlier rupture emerged when the contradiction between emancipatory ideals and authoritarian practice became impossible to sustain, producing widespread disillusionment, organisational fragmentation, and generational disengagement beginning in the late 1950s. This process was driven by unethical support for Stalinism and later extended to figures such as Saddam Hussein and, more recently, Bashar al-Assad, despite well-documented atrocities and genocides. Today, a comparable danger lies in the growing tendency within segments of the democratic Left to interpret global politics through a rigidly oppositional lens, in which resistance to Northern (Western) imperialism is assumed to be inherently progressive. Within this framework, geopolitical alignment risks substituting for critical judgement, and opposition to Northern power becomes detached from consistent democratic and ethical standards.
Central to this dynamic is the expanding role of BRICS. Originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, BRICS presents itself as a platform for South–South cooperation and as an alternative pole within the global political and economic order – an initiative that was, in many respects, politically necessary to counter exploitative Global North hegemony. Following its most recent expansion, the grouping now includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Despite the diversity of their political systems, these states share an emphasis on sovereignty, non-intervention, and development-centred approaches to global governance. While BRICS is frequently framed as a counterweight to Northern hegemony, its collective institutional practices have increasingly attracted scrutiny with regard to democracy and human rights.
Recent scholarship demonstrates that BRICS exhibits a notable degree of coherence in de-prioritising civil and political rights, resisting international accountability mechanisms, and defending state authority even in cases of severe repression.[1] For parts of the European Left, this record is often downplayed or relativised in the name of anti-imperialism. Yet such positioning risks repeating a familiar historical error: subordinating socialist ethics and democratic commitments to the geopolitical logic of authoritarian power. Comparative research on socialist crises suggests that such alignments tend not to strengthen emancipatory movements but instead expose them to crises of legitimacy once their internal contradictions become visible.[2]
The danger confronting the European Left today is therefore not only external vulnerability, but a likely internal rupture. Confusing opposition to Northern imperialism with endorsement of alternative power blocs risks undermining the moral foundations upon which the current resurgence rests. Whether this moment develops into a durable renewal or another episode of fragmentation will depend on the European Left’s capacity to sustain an independent, principled anti-imperialism – one grounded not in geopolitical campism, but in democracy, freedom, international law, and universal human rights.
Defending state sovereignty within internationally recognised borders should remain a clear anti-imperialist red line; however, the extension of this principle into the defence of authoritarian regimes constitutes a serious theoretical and political error. As an emancipatory movement, anti-imperialism is not merely oppositional to external domination but is normatively grounded in the struggle for freedom itself, such that indifference to domestic violations of democracy and civil liberties ultimately hollowes out its emancipatory content.
The Current Resurgence of the European Left
The ongoing genocide in Gaza has become a central axis of mobilisation across Europe, generating an unusual degree of unity among otherwise fragmented leftist traditions not seen since the late 1950s. Mass demonstrations in cities such as Brussels, Paris, Berlin, The Hague, Madrid, and London have drawn hundreds of thousands of participants, with particularly strong representation from young activists, labour union networks, and student unions. For Generation Z, political engagement is increasingly shaped by digital media, transnational framing, and heightened sensitivity to global injustice.[3] In this context, Palestine has emerged as a universal moral and political reference point, crystallising broader critiques of imperialism, racism, state violence, and the complicity of a decaying liberal global order.
Unlike the marginal pro-Palestine protest cycles of earlier decades, the present resurgence has been anchored in a more coherent ethical framework. Solidarity with Palestine has supplied a universalist language of justice that resonates across national and ideological boundaries, enabling diverse left-wing actors to unite around shared demands. This moral clarity has temporarily strengthened the Left’s legitimacy at a time when liberal European politics is marked by democratic erosion, securitisation, and the normalisation of far-right discourse. Yet this unity remains contingent. Opposition to Northern complicity has intensified debates over global alignments, strategic allies, and the narrowing of political judgement at precisely the moment when ethical consistency is most necessary. The current resurgence thus contains unresolved tensions that may surface as its initial momentum subsides.
1956: The Historic Rupture
The events of 1956 marked a decisive rupture within the international leftist movement, as the public exposure of Joseph Stalin’s crimes coincided with the violent suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, which was largely led by self-organised workers. Together, these developments shattered the credibility of the Soviet Union as a ‘model of socialist progress’ by revealing the authoritarian foundations beneath its emancipatory claims. As a result, mid-twentieth-century socialist movements in Europe suffered a profound crisis whose effects continue to shape left politics to this day. The contradiction between emancipatory ideals and authoritarian practice became impossible to ignore. This episode of so-called ‘socialist disillusionment’ demonstrates that the erosion of moral credibility, rather than organisational weakness alone, was central to the fragmentation of the Left during this period. The rupture manifested not merely as disagreement over strategy, but as a crisis of belief. Consequently, left-wing parties experienced mass resignations, declining legitimacy among younger activists, and long-term fragmentation along ideological lines.
The enduring lesson of this episode lies in its structural character. Historical analyses of left internationalism suggest that when socialist movements equate anti-imperialist alignment with moral progressiveness, they render themselves vulnerable to crisis once repression becomes undeniable. The rupture commonly associated with 1956 thus stands not simply as a singular event, but as a recurring pattern – visible in later episodes of leftist support for authoritarian regimes, including in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Syria under Bashar al-Assad, Russia under Vladimir Putin, and China under Xi Jinping. This pattern continues to shape the dilemmas of the contemporary European Left. Members of European left-wing parties may question why European citizens originating from these countries remain largely absent from party membership, even in states with sizeable diasporas. The explanation often lies in the fact that these communities possess lived experience of violent authoritarianism, whereas many indigenous European leftist members and leaderships do not.
BRICS and the Risk of a New 1956
Within the contemporary European Left, the risk of a renewed rupture lies in the growing embrace of BRICS as a collective anti-imperialist alternative to Northern hegemony. This tendency reflects a form of campism in which opposition to the United States and its allies is treated as sufficient evidence of progressive orientation. Within this framework, BRICS is increasingly portrayed as a vehicle for global justice and South–South solidarity.
However, analyses of BRICS’ institutional behaviour reveal a consistent pattern that challenges this interpretation. Across summit declarations and multilateral voting records, BRICS members display a notable degree of coherence in resisting international human rights scrutiny, prioritising state sovereignty over civil and political rights, and rejecting international accountability mechanisms.[4] This pattern is further reinforced by coordinated opposition or abstention on resolutions addressing repression, political imprisonment, and mass violence.[5] Even the principled positions taken by South Africa and Brazil against the ongoing genocide in Gaza do not necessarily reflect a consensus within BRICS. On the contrary, these stances may represent a minority position within a grouping that includes several member states complicit in Israeli policies, such as the United Arab Emirates leading new regional normalisation efforts with Israel, while other members maintain distinct yet materially beneficial relationships with the Israeli occupation.
The danger for the European Left lies in mistaking the rejection of Northern imperialism for emancipatory politics as such. As research on global governance demonstrates, BRICS’ approach to human rights reflects not a transitional compromise but a structural commitment to state-centred authority.[6] When the contradiction between anti-imperialist rhetoric and tolerated repression becomes unavoidable, the Left risks confronting a crisis of credibility comparable to earlier historical ruptures.
The Fragility of Current Unity
The unifying force generated by solidarity with Palestine is therefore inherently fragile. While it has mobilised unprecedented masses for the first time in decades, it operates within an increasingly polarised geopolitical environment. As segments of the European Left gravitate towards BRICS as an anti-imperialist reference point, the risk emerges that ethical clarity becomes subordinated to strategic alignment.
This tension is particularly acute among younger activists. Generation Z places a strong emphasis on consistency, transparency, and universal moral standards, and displays limited tolerance for justificatory narratives that excuse repression abroad.[7] The collective record of BRICS – marked by resistance to accountability and coordinated opposition to human rights – poses a direct challenge to these expectations.[8] Historical parallels suggest that such contradictions are rarely sustainable. When movements are perceived as selectively blind to authoritarianism, disengagement and fragmentation tend to follow, particularly among younger militants whose participation is vital to long-term renewal.
Avoiding a New Rupture
Avoiding a renewed rupture requires an explicitly independent stance towards BRICS, though not an oppositional one. This approach does not imply any accommodation with decaying liberal Northern imperialism; rather, it entails the consistent application of democratic and human rights standards across all geopolitical contexts as a common ethical ground and a safeguard against fragmentation. Historical experience demonstrates that when movements of left internationalism sacrifice ethical autonomy in favour of strategic alignment, they undermine their own long-term credibility.
Empirical studies of BRICS confirm that its alternative discourse on development and sovereignty, while politically and economically significant, systematically marginalises civil liberties and democratic accountability.[9] For a Left committed to emancipation, these features cannot be treated as secondary concerns. It is therefore essential to recognise that political coherence is sustained not through ambiguity or selective silence, but through transparent and consistent value commitments.
In conclusion, the European Left stands at a critical juncture. Its resurgence – driven by solidarity with Palestine and revitalised by younger generations – represents a significant opportunity for renewal. Yet this moment is shadowed by a familiar danger: the temptation to embrace BRICS as an anti-imperialist alternative without confronting its collective record of violations of democracy and human rights. If the European Left is to avoid another historic rupture, it must sustain an independent, principled form of anti-imperialism that rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. Only by doing so can the present resurgence mature into a durable emancipatory project rather than another episode of disillusionment.
This article has been lightly proofread using AI assistance.
[1] Ahmed A. Khalifa and Zainab Fathy, “BRICS and Human Rights: Issues, Implications, and Impact Scenarios Under Expansion,” Rowaq Arabi 29, no. 1 (2024): 145–162, https://doi.org/10.53833/WJPV7193.
[2] Margot Heinemann, “1956 and the Communist Party,” Socialist Register 13 (1976): 43–57.
[3] Ann Vaneza Jude and Padmakumari Padmavathi, “Social Media Activism: Delving into Generation Z’s Experiences,” Communication Research and Practice (September 2025), https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2025.2554375.
[4] Khalifa and Fathy, “BRICS and Human Rights”.
[5] Ian Taylor, “BRICS in Africa and Human Rights,” in Routledge Handbook of Africa–Asia Relations, ed. Pedro Amakasu Raposo, David Arase, and Scarlett Cornelissen (London: Routledge, 2017), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315689067.
[6] Khalifa and Fathy, “BRICS and Human Rights”.
[7] Jude and Padmavathi, “Social Media Activism.
[8] Khalifa and Fathy, “BRICS and Human Rights”.
[9] Ibid.