In a sense, the Stalinist persecution of political dissidents was a lot more brutal than that of the fascists. Dont get me wrong, if the option was only between Hitler and Stalin I would gladly prefer Stalin, despite all the atrocities that he committed. But it is also important to recognize that the leftists who were murdered by the fascists knew that they were being martyred for a noble cause. Those murdered by the Stalinists, especially through the show trials, underwent a double murder. A spiritual one, followed by the physical. As Orwell put it in 1984, they were compelled to believe, against all reason, that two plus two was five. Their spirit of dissidence was broken, they were forced to confess their infidelity, and later unglamourously executed or made to rot in a gulag. In comparison, the greater moral crime was not the political genocide of leftists by fascists, but rather the mass murder of dissident leftists by the Stalinist dogmatists. One can say that Stalinism was a continuation of murders of heretics by the Inquisition.
Historically, the brutal and absolute power of the Inquisition lay not just in breaking the body of the heretic, but in breaking their soul. It was necessary to show the heretics as sinners against a divinely established body of truth, by virtue of which they had to be excommunicated and purged. In a sense, this is what the multicultural liberal-left is doing in the name of 'defending minority cultures'. By default, any one who criticizes these minority cultures is considered a White patriarch/racist/Islamophobe etc and publicly shamed. There is a tacit assumption that these cultures matter to all individuals from non-Western societies and that they need not be integrated into Western Enlightenment standards. And while this liberal-left does not have the power to physically murder like the Catholic Inquistion or Stalinism, they still have a power to enforce censorship and mark labels on individuals in the media. So in place of the "heretic" or the "traitor", we have the "White imperialist capitalist patriarch" or the "Islamophobe".
As a "minority within a minority" (Tamil) in the West, I find these uncritical approvals of minority cultures frightening. Worse, I find it hard to get my articles published because they do not criticize the West and/or Israel enough. I can claim a triple discrimination here - racists here detest me because I am a "bloody immigrant", my "fellow South Asians" hate me because I unconditionally oppose their cultural bigotries, and the liberal-left Whites censor me because I do not fit into their "lets blame the West for everything and exonerate the rest from everything" dogma. And several of my progressive 'Muslim' friends from Kurdish, Turkish and Iranian communities face the same problem.
It is dark humour that for all their ire against Samuel Huntington's 'clash of civilizations' theses, in fact, it is precisely the multicultural liberal-left who are the true Huntingtonians of the modern times. Why? More than the right-wingers, it is they who believe that there is something called a 'Muslim world', as different from the other worlds, whose inhabitants prioritize the Islamic identity over all else, and that it is a liberal duty to respect this identity. A critical interrogation of the ideology that nurtures this identity or the bigots that it privileges is to be avoided, well, because it would be Islamophobic. Obviously, the right-wing belief that "Everyone from the Muslim world is a potential terrorist" is wrong. But what do you call the left-liberal dogma that "Everyone from the Muslim world loves their Muslim identity and we must love them remaining that way"?
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, a collective of writers, artists, lawyers, academics and activists - most of them 'Muslims' - from across the world signed a petition urging governments to not recognize "moderate" Islamists, but instead combat Islamism through "political means and mass mobilisation, not by giving extra privileges to any religion."
Of course, the right-wing media did not cover any of this. It would undermine their theory that anything progressive would elude the Muslims. But the general silence of the liberal-left in engaging with these viewpoints from the 'others' in the 'Muslim world' was painful. Isn't their privileging of both "moderate" and "hardcore" Islamist voices contributing to the further silencing of those who reject the Muslim identity politics and seek alternatives in radical emancipatory political projects?
In an interview, Neil deGrasse Tyson commented on the three phases of the life of a scientific truth - First people say: "It can't be true". Second they say: "It conflicts with the bible." Third they say: "It's true all along." The same applies for political truths. The great political truth of our time is this - Islamism is a problem by itself and there are progressives from various Muslim communities across the world waging a life-or-death struggle against it. It cannot be excused or explained away by blaming Western imperialism. Western liberal-leftists now say that this can't be true. They will next say that it conflicts with the multicultural gospel and censor all those who reject this thesis. Eventually they will say that it is true all along.
But by then, there will be many more victims of terrorist attacks like the Copenhagen shootings which the European Right will cynically manipulate to further their indiscriminate xenophobia. And if we do not stand up to the Inquisition that the politically correct multicultural left have forced upon us, we might as well embrace a century of competing fundamentalisms.