Has there ever been a successful government that has been far left/progressive?
As only a casual reader of history, it seems to me all populist or "people's" movements all eventually implode because the ideology is inherently self-defeating. Am I missing something?
Also, I don't want to make this a modern "left vs right" debate, please. this isn't /pol/.
>>1421851
Define successful, far-left, and progressive.
There are plenty of very famous reformers that fit into the Whig historical narrative.
>>1421851
Bismarcks Germany
>>1421851
>far left/progressive
The problem is that today's definition of "left/progressive" is entirely different from that of history. A libertarian is often times considered to be right-wing today, yet libertarianism was extremely leftwing/progressive when it was founded during the Enlightenment. Therefore, this whole dichotomy is stupid and serves no purpose other than fooling the populace into picking left or right.
The United States and the French Republic both considered themselves to be leftist states. The US obviously strayed off course in the early 1900's, and France had a lot of ups and downs. Nevertheless, they both experienced periods of success and were considered to be leftist.
>>1421864
>>1421894
You're right, I guess sometimes we are limited by our language.
I meant what you could call "people's movements" that have the goal of a totally "equal" society.
For example, the Grachi brothers in Ancient Rome and thier populist agenda.
The French Revolution
The Russian revolution
Etc
>>1421851
Most of them are successful in the short term but collapse in the long term; it's the hallmark of revolutionary governments.
You have an initial revolutionary leader who is both a charismatic demagogue and a brilliant general/logistician. He rallies a popular movement around him and topples the old order to bring in a new progressive regime, but then things change. Either he dies and is replaced by a tyrant obsessed with holding power or a bureaucrat who lacks the talent to hold things together, or he remains on the throne a while longer but the movement fizzles out after its initial revolutionary fervor and falls apart due to apathy and corruption.
America is one of the few exceptions, because Washington was not the primary ideologue of the revolution, and passed on power to a successor in an orderly fashion while he was still at his height of ability and popularity.
>Whigism
Think about the beliefs you hold then get back to us.
No. Left progressive politics is a negation. The left never create, everything is always a negation. I take issue with the word "reactionary", because it is the left that are always the ones reacting to the current realities. They are even reacting/negating nature itself.
Marxism is a negation of Capitalism and Marx's criticisms are the only embers that remain of his works. Leftist art too is a negation, a negation of beauty, a negation of meaning, a negation of the idea of "art" itself. The left has become the dominant cultural force in the West today which is why art is atrophying. The left have nothing left to negate and so they negate themselves in a series of tedious meta-ironies that spiral into nothingness ad infinitum. Leftist professors drag Shakespeare, Melville, Goethe, etc through broken glass to stand trial for some alleged political crimes against equality. Tedium permeates every lecture, gnawing though artistic heroes like some termite, reducing them to dust. Howard Bloom is right to identify them as "the School of Resentment". They are parasites and cast a shadow of death.
Now, it is true that genius destroys that which comes before however, this negation is followed by the building up of artistic forms to new heights. While Brahms concluded that Beethoven was the conclusion of Western music and that the purpose of music was to then refine the forms through musical tradition, Wagner acted in negation to tradition. But Wagner also then CREATED new musical forms, a new conducting style, a new atonal style, a new dramatic vision. He built western music up to new unprecedented heights.
So, leftist politics or aesthetics can never produce truly great art or great states because they exist only in negation. Some artists and states may wear the mask of leftism, but they are elitist, authoritarian, and inegalitarian in spirit.
>>1422325
TL;DR -- leftism is negation, while rightism is creation.
>>1422325
>>1422342
well said there old bean!
>>1422325
>The left have nothing left to negate and so they negate themselves in a series of tedious meta-ironies that spiral into nothingness ad infinitum.
I like this
>>1422325
so basically right wing is cancer?
>>1422409
No. The destruction of existing forms is leftist while the creation of new and greater forms is rightist. Creation and genius are elitist and inegalitarian. Nietzsche is a good example of this. His destruction of nationalism, religion, etc is leftist and is praised by the "left", while his creation in the form of overman is rightist and despised by the "left".
>>1422432
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis
>>1422491
ah. You literally meant "cancer" and the neutral process of a cancer, rather than using the word loaded with negative connotations? that is a synonym of "bad".
>2016
>people still believe in left vs right
>>1421883
>Lost WW1
>Experience one of the worst cases of hyperinflation
>Constant civil/racial strife and foreign diplomatic failures
>"GOTT MIT UNS"
>>1422325
Weren't the Enlightenment a leftist movement?
And the rightists reactionaries can't be seen as negation of that movement. Especially the monarchists.
I personally don't know much about art but you would consider art forms like Dadaism to be some new unprecedented height?
>>1423320
>Weren't the Enlightenment a leftist movement?
No, the enlightenment values are freedom, both in action and in thought. The opposite of the values of leftism, which are equality, both in action an in thought.
>>1423352
But the Enlightenment ideals, especially the idea of a Republic and distinctly preached egalitarian. And it was preached by the leftists of the time.
The American and French Revolution/Republic are as >>1421894 said, leftist states. And both those movement were fueled by Enlightenment ideals. It seems unfair to claim leftism is a negation and ignore events in history to fit leftism into a framework
>>1423375
>But the Enlightenment ideals, especially the idea of a Republic and distinctly preached egalitarian
No, they preach equality under the law. They recognize humans as unequal both in character and capabilities.
16th, 17th and 18th century "leftism" would be considered radical libertarianism today. Leftism ever since the mid 19th century has been associated with socialism and marxism. Which have nothing to do with the values of the enlightenment.
To put in simply : the values of the enlightenment are those evil "bourgeois" values. They're not leftist in the modern sense.
Has there ever been a successful government?
>>1423384
So your leftism is actually the leftism that conveniently starts at a certain point of time? My last sentence in my previous post still stands
I will concede marxism but how is socialism a negation? As much as it is anti captialism it is for something and does provide economic systems like Syndicalism. Plus wouldn't Socialism be a extension of the Enlightenment's value of Fraternity? It is also impossible to establish socialism without a republic
>>1423424
>So your leftism is actually the leftism that conveniently starts at a certain point of time?
It's the leftism which is referred to as "leftism" to this day, which is socialism and all its variants.
> My last sentence in my previous post still stands
No, because the enlightenment values were not egalitarian. The whole "leftist" things is arguing semantics. The word leftist changed meaning over time.
To put it simply : enlightenment values = bourgeois values. Now if you consider bourgeois values to be "leftist", then sure you can call revolutionary america leftist.
>I will concede marxism but how is socialism a negation?
It's a negation of natural law.
> Plus wouldn't Socialism be a extension of the Enlightenment's value of Fraternity?
At the expense of freedom... the most important value of them all.
""Fraternity"" isn't even an enlightenment value per se.
> It is also impossible to establish socialism without a republic
If history shows anything it's that it's impossible to establish socialism period.
>>1422325
*Harold Bloom
>>1423436
So now leftism is now just socialism and all its variants? If you say so senpai
>Now if you consider bourgeois values to be "leftist", then sure you can call revolutionary america leftist.
I do senpai. My 'leftism' includes the entire history of the Left.
>It's a negation of natural law.
And Capitalism somehow isn't? And trade guilds (precursor to unions) didn't exist before socialism? Even if Socialism is a negation of natural law, it is not just a negation but at least attempts to feel the void.
>""Fraternity"" isn't even an enlightenment value per se.
>per se
Liberty,Equality.... Now you are just distorting definitions to fit your argument
>If history shows anything it's that it's impossible to establish socialism period.
But we are not talking about actual history but your claim that leftism is negation am i right? So don't dodge the question.
>>1423282
>BISMARCK's Germany
>>1423476
>So now leftism is now just socialism and all its variants? If you say so senpai
Well yes that is its modern definition. The word "ejaculation" used to mean 100 years ago saying something suddenly, but its meaning has changed over the years.
>I do senpai. My 'leftism' includes the entire history of the Left.
Why stop there? You might include every single political system to have ever existed if you're going to abstain to categorize them based on what they actually are. (and not what they might've been called 3 centuries ago)
>And Capitalism somehow isn't?
It isn't.
> And trade guilds (precursor to unions) didn't exist before socialism?
Sure they did. Trade guilds are not incompatible with natural law. I don't think you grasp what the word "socalism" means, which is the common ownership of the means of the production and the abolishing of private property.
>Liberty,Equality,...
Those are not enlightenment values, it's a slogan invented by Robespierre during the french revolution...
The general values of the enlightenment are better presented in the american constitution imo.
>Now you are just distorting definitions to fit your argument
I'm curious to know what you think "enlightenment values" are.
>But we are not talking about actual history but your claim that leftism is negation am i right?
I don't understand this question.
>So don't dodge the question.
The sentence " It is also impossible to establish socialism without a republic" which I was replying to isn't a question, it's a statement.
>>1423497
>you're going to abstain to categorize them based on what they actually are
I understand that groups change over time but it is retarded to dismiss entire section of history as not part of the group
Capitalism is natural law? Come now, Capitalism as a concept wasn't invented for most of history. And everything that did came before is Mercantilism. It is hypocritical to claim Captialism is natural law and Socialism is not.
I do understand what socialism means, and unions/trade guilds are a instrument to that purpose(Although it is more for its variants than pure socialism)
>The general values of the enlightenment are better presented in the american constitution imo.
You don't get to pick and choose what causes are part of the enlightenment. Both Revolutions were part of the Enlightenment and should represent it.
>I'm curious to know what you think "enlightenment values" are
Fraternity is one of them
Whether Socialism is an extension of Enlightenment's value of Fraternity?
>>1422325
>>1422342
>>1422371
>>1421851
>As only a casual reader of history, it seems to me all populist or "people's" movements all eventually implode because the ideology is inherently self-defeating. Am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing the part where you're not indoctrinated by right-wing bullshit.
>>1422325
>No. Left progressive politics is a negation. The left never create, everything is always a negation. I take issue with the word "reactionary", because it is the left that are always the ones reacting to the current realities. They are even reacting/negating nature itself.
Kek what in the fuck
>>1424206
In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar.
Children will be blessed for Killing Of Educated Adults Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous Days Same Earth Rotation. Practicing Evil ONEness - Upon Earth Of Quadrants. Evil Adult Crime VS Youth. Supports Lie Of Integration. 1 Educated Are Most Dumb. Not 1 Human Except Dead 1. Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self. 1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God.
Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies. Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s. God Is Born Of A Mother – She Left Belly B. Signature. Every Priest Has Ma Sign But Lies To Honor Queers. Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.
