The "Red Terror" and the Politics of Historical Gaslighting

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) & Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Trotsky) – Revolutionaries, strategists, and the architects of a new world. Their names became symbols of upheaval, their actions shaped history, and their legacies remain fiercely debated.

History is written by the victors, it's said - and nowhere is this more evident than in how political violence is framed. The term Red Terror evokes images of Bolshevik brutality, mass executions, and the suppression of political opponents. It is frequently cited as evidence of communism’s inherent tyranny. However, when placed in historical context, it becomes clear that this framing is less about objective history and more about ideological warfare.

In 1918, the newly formed Soviet government was not just fighting a civil war but also resisting foreign intervention from 14 different countries, including Britain, France, the U.S., and Japan. The Bolsheviks were surrounded by internal enemies and external imperialist forces determined to crush the revolution.

Under these conditions, any government, socialist or capitalist, would likely resort to extreme measures to maintain power. Yet, when Western nations face similar crises, their crackdowns are justified as "necessary for national security."

Take Britain, for example. Throughout its history, it has brutally suppressed uprisings in Ireland, India, Kenya, and elsewhere. The British response to the Mau Mau Uprising included mass internment, torture, and executions, actions that mirrored the so-called Red Terror. Yet, these events are rarely framed as the "British terror", instead, they are rationalised as 'unfortunate necessities in maintaining order'. Similarly, the U.S. has backed brutal authoritarian regimes across Latin America and beyond, justifying political repression when it serves their interests.

This selective framing serves a clear purpose: to delegitimise socialist experiments while excusing capitalist violence. When Lenin and Trotsky took drastic measures, it was terror. When Churchill ordered the use of poison gas against Kurds or when the U.S. propped up Pinochet’s brutal regime, it was "defense of democracy." This is not an argument that Bolshevik violence was morally justifiable, but rather that it was not uniquely evil in comparison to what other states have done under similar pressures.

Furthermore, the so-called Red Terror did not occur in a vacuum. Anti-communist capitalist forces, both foreign and domestic, were engaging in their own reign of terror against Bolshevik supporters. The White Terror, carried out by counter-revolutionary forces, was just as brutal, if not worse. In areas controlled by White armies, mass executions, pogroms, and political persecution were widespread. The difference? The White Terror is rarely discussed with the same condemnation as what is dubbed the Red Terror, if it is even acknowledged at all.

By calling it the Red Terror, the Western narrative isolates Bolshevik violence from its context while conveniently ignoring similar actions by their own governments and their allies. The way we ignore the context of 14 attacking capitalist countries, including Britain, is a form of historical gaslighting and manipulation of how people perceive the past to reinforce ideological dominance. The goal is not to objectively analyse history, but to ensure that socialism is forever associated with repression, while capitalist violence is rationalised or forgotten.

At its core, this double standard is not only about ideology, but also about power. The dominant system will always portray its violence as justified and its enemies’ violence as monstrous. By controlling historical narratives, capitalist states maintain their moral high ground and suppress the possibility of alternative economic systems.

If Britain had been in the same position as Soviet Russia, facing foreign invasions, civil war, and economic collapse, it is almost certain that it would have responded with the same level of repression.

Yet, history would not call it the "British Terror". It would be remembered as a difficult but necessary period of national survival. By recognising this hypocrisy, we can move towards a more honest historical analysis, one that acknowledges the brutality of all states, not just those that challenge the status quo.

The Red Terror was a tragic chapter in history, but using that label while ignoring similar actions by capitalist states and their allies is not historical truth, it’s propaganda.