Oh, cool, tell me what historically successful, relevant and long-lasting leftist movements you support! Wait, you don’t support any actually existing leftism…?
You can answer the question too! Which actually existing current or historical leftist movements do you support? Or is your ideology purely theoretical and you don’t actually care about the results?
Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793… Maybe read some theory instead of making arguments from ignorance.
And you can care about results without having historical results. Anti-monarchism in general had basically zero results post-Industrial Revolution until the liberals won in North America in the late 18th century, but that didn’t mean that they didn’t care about results, just that they hadn’t achieved much yet. The American Revolution was pretty quickly followed by the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, several more French revolutions, Brazilian independence, and eventually the October Revolution, the most recent Chinese civil war, the Cuban Revolution, and so on.
Between 1775 and 1925, the general concept of people voting on matters of statewide policy went from a relic of the Classical Era that had ended more than 1800 years earlier to the norm in North America and Europe. 1800 years of obscurity, then 150 years to ubiquity in the world’s wealthiest states and another 50 to expand to most of the rest.
Sure, anarchism has had a longer period out of the spotlight, not having been the norm since roughly the invention of agriculture ~8000 years ago, but you never know when it might return. Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you’re striving for are just, otherwise you end up with liberalism again. And we all know how that ends up.
Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793
Pre-columbian societies aside (you can’t turn history around), all the rest ended up in fascism/monarchism/failed state in a matter of how many years/months?
And you can care about results without having historical results
Yes, you can do that if your goal is moral purity or intellectual amusement and not the material improvement of the lives of actual people. All other system changes you’ve proposed are just changes of ruling class and production system due to the slow motor of history and development, except for the socialist revolutions in Russia, China and Cuba. We literally have the recipe that works, why do you reject it?
Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you’re striving for are just
Agreed. That’s why I praise the immense increases in welfare and quality of life in actually existing socialist countries, both historical and ongoing.
Being better at violence doesn’t make you more left, it makes you better at violence. That can be useful, but it isn’t the same thing. Your argument boils down to “might makes right” and could be expanded to classify social democracy as “more left” (after all, it’s left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average). In fact, you might even be able to use the argument for liberalism; it’s left of monarchy and fascism. Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR.
Being better at violence doesn’t make you more left
Being better at violence against fascism and imperialism definitely makes you more left, though. Actual praxis and results are to me the definition of successful leftism, not the realm of ideas. The lack of proper violence against such regimes leads to a destruction of the left wing.
Your argument boils down to “might makes right” and could be expanded to classify social democracy as “more left”
Social democracy also regularly turns to fascism when it needs to, it’s definitely lacking violence against fascism, amazing that you’d say this in 2026. I fucking wish our mighty social democracies in Europe fought against Israeli fascism and USA fascism, unfortunately they’re buddies!
(after all, it’s left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average)
By excluding imperialism from the measure of average happiness, you’re committing a sampling error. That would be like polling monarchs of medieval Europe to ask whether monarchy is the system making people happier. Ask the people in India and Sri Lanka and Peru extracting the resources of the goods social democracies consume and sewing the clothes we wear how happy they are with social democracy.
Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR
So, we have one example of a Marxist-Leninist state decaying to fascism (after saving Europe from Nazism) and several examples of countries not doing this (China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba). How about we engage in honest criticism of the flaws of the Soviet model that led to its dissolution in order to prevent that from happening again?
Oh, cool, tell me what historically successful, relevant and long-lasting leftist movements you support! Wait, you don’t support any actually existing leftism…?
Hey I found the Tankie who thinks they’re on the left!
You can answer the question too! Which actually existing current or historical leftist movements do you support? Or is your ideology purely theoretical and you don’t actually care about the results?
Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793… Maybe read some theory instead of making arguments from ignorance.
And you can care about results without having historical results. Anti-monarchism in general had basically zero results post-Industrial Revolution until the liberals won in North America in the late 18th century, but that didn’t mean that they didn’t care about results, just that they hadn’t achieved much yet. The American Revolution was pretty quickly followed by the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, several more French revolutions, Brazilian independence, and eventually the October Revolution, the most recent Chinese civil war, the Cuban Revolution, and so on.
Between 1775 and 1925, the general concept of people voting on matters of statewide policy went from a relic of the Classical Era that had ended more than 1800 years earlier to the norm in North America and Europe. 1800 years of obscurity, then 150 years to ubiquity in the world’s wealthiest states and another 50 to expand to most of the rest.
Sure, anarchism has had a longer period out of the spotlight, not having been the norm since roughly the invention of agriculture ~8000 years ago, but you never know when it might return. Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you’re striving for are just, otherwise you end up with liberalism again. And we all know how that ends up.
Pre-columbian societies aside (you can’t turn history around), all the rest ended up in fascism/monarchism/failed state in a matter of how many years/months?
Yes, you can do that if your goal is moral purity or intellectual amusement and not the material improvement of the lives of actual people. All other system changes you’ve proposed are just changes of ruling class and production system due to the slow motor of history and development, except for the socialist revolutions in Russia, China and Cuba. We literally have the recipe that works, why do you reject it?
Agreed. That’s why I praise the immense increases in welfare and quality of life in actually existing socialist countries, both historical and ongoing.
Bruh just out here punching the air in an empty comment section of a shit posting sub
Go back to your echo chamber tankie. Nobody likes you. Nobody wants you. But I’m sure your fans enjoy your circle jerk.
Are you a fucking cop? Get the fuck out of here you loser. I’m sorry everyone hates you. But thats a you issue.
I’m not sorry everyone hates them
Being better at violence doesn’t make you more left, it makes you better at violence. That can be useful, but it isn’t the same thing. Your argument boils down to “might makes right” and could be expanded to classify social democracy as “more left” (after all, it’s left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average). In fact, you might even be able to use the argument for liberalism; it’s left of monarchy and fascism. Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR.
Being better at violence against fascism and imperialism definitely makes you more left, though. Actual praxis and results are to me the definition of successful leftism, not the realm of ideas. The lack of proper violence against such regimes leads to a destruction of the left wing.
Social democracy also regularly turns to fascism when it needs to, it’s definitely lacking violence against fascism, amazing that you’d say this in 2026. I fucking wish our mighty social democracies in Europe fought against Israeli fascism and USA fascism, unfortunately they’re buddies!
By excluding imperialism from the measure of average happiness, you’re committing a sampling error. That would be like polling monarchs of medieval Europe to ask whether monarchy is the system making people happier. Ask the people in India and Sri Lanka and Peru extracting the resources of the goods social democracies consume and sewing the clothes we wear how happy they are with social democracy.
So, we have one example of a Marxist-Leninist state decaying to fascism (after saving Europe from Nazism) and several examples of countries not doing this (China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba). How about we engage in honest criticism of the flaws of the Soviet model that led to its dissolution in order to prevent that from happening again?