There is really only one thing which can unite the far sides of the political spectrum: war, or rather, the opposition to it. When The US, Britain and France sent missiles flying over Syria this past weekend, the hard left and the libertarian right were uniform in their condemnation.
With libertarianism confined to the fringes of politics in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour has been the main voice advocating restraint from a military response to the apparent (alleged) chemical attack by President Assad on Syrian civilians. There are no surprises here. The hard left has a long history of opposing any and all Western military action, going back to Vietnam and beyond. But where the left differs from the libertarian right is in their motivation. The left is, alas, not opposed to war based on a principled commitment to non-aggression. From principle flows consistency, which is why libertarians are uniformly opposed to military action unless strictly for the purpose of self-defence. But the left’s motives are to be found in a fundamental world view, rather than a fundamental principle. To them, conflict is rooted in inequality. When the mighty West seek to use their military power, they see an act of oppression – often, there is a kernel of truth in this thinking, but reality is of course much too complex to be boiled down to the exploitation of the weak by the powerful. Local power struggles, tribalism, history, culture, religion and much more is missing from the left’s analysis of conflict.
So, Corbyn has an admirably consistent history of opposing UK military action – the UK is, uniformly, an imperialist aggressor in his world, so it is easy pickings. It has been much harder for Corbyn to be against military aggression when it has been perpetrated by those who he sees himself as ideologically aligned with: he and the left have been equally consistent in encouraging military and terrorist action aimed at western nations, their interests and allies. Corbyn didn’t seem too concerned about the human suffering in Aleppo when the Russians helped Assad bomb the city in 2016. When conflict broke out in Ukraine, Corbyn was also siding with Russia. Going further back, the left had little trouble with the Soviet invasions in Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia. Corbyn is closely associated with the Stop the War Coalition, a left-wing anti-war grouping which holds strong sympathies for Russia and Iran. He is an ally of multiple terrorist organisations, from being on the side of the IRA in the Northern Irish conflict to supporting Hamas in their struggle against the Jewish state. The Jewish question is one which sits especially uncomfortably with the left – they see Jews as oppressors, and accordingly judge aggression against them to be broadly justified (we discuss this in much more detail here). So, Corbyn demands an investigation into the Syrian gas attacks, but when Israeli military is reported to have fired shots in Gaza he needs no further proof.
In the end, the left has no problem with using power and coercion to meet political ends; quite the contrary. Domestically, their yearning for a strong state is inextricably tied to the use of force, be it to extract taxes from its citizens or to meet social policy ends, such as enforcing gender equality. A strong state is the ultimate oppressor, but the end justifies the means for those who fail to be guided by principle. On the world stage, their opposition to the use of aggression and force, rather than being principled, depends on how events fit their narrative of oppressors vs. oppressed. It is so very different from libertarianism. When we find ourselves united with the hard left in opposition to war we are the unlikeliest of travel companions; finding ourselves heading in the same direction, but for very different reasons.