Why do we still calling the left progressive?

Lefties regimes have only brought genocide and poverty wherever it was applied. Why do we keep relating progress with a failed ideology?

At least try being a bit more inconspicuous, you dirty /pol/ cunt. You bring nothing but shame. End your pitiful existence instead of shitting up our board.

Not an argument.
Left=hunger,poverty and genocide

...

This is a thread about history and humanities. It discusses if the left deserces to be called progressive looking at its record

Looks like you don't really get how averages work, nice try though.

>Looks like you don't really get how averages work, nice try though.
What do you mean? You can also take the median salary by socioeconomic sector and see who was wealthier. Protip,commies built walls for a reason,and it wasnt precisly to not let people from capitalist societies flood theor countries

>public ownership of the means of production
>mass murder
choose one

That's not the argument you're making though. You're looking at GDP per capita, which doesn't prove any of the things you've said.

Sweden's GDP per capita probably grew slower than the UK's in the last 20 years, that doesn't mean that quality of life and median incomes haven't been consistently better in Sweden.

You are right it has never happened before,oh wait....
Left=misery,genocide and poverty. I dont really think of this when people talk about progress

you can call the state capitalists of the 20th century left. I'll start calling the real left something else.

>That's not the argument you're making though.
My argument wasnt just based around the pick,it was just to show how much harm left wing ideology causes. You also have stadistics about median household income,which qgain,just proves that I am right. Why do you think that commies build huge walls and frontier outposts? And the standards of livings of the UK have been risen a lot faster than Sweden's in the last 30 years.

In what world is Mugabe a leftist?

>the real left
>Not true Scotman may may
What do you consider """"true"""""left? Queer anarchism?

>In what world is the leader of a party founded by communist China and that had policies based on expropiation to """distribute""" """"wealth""""" a lefties

Well Pinochet was a capitalist, so I guess all capitalists must be bad right?

>Well Pinochet was a capitalist, so I guess all capitalists must be bad right?
Pinochet set the path for Chile to be the most succesful country in south America. He did lots of bad things,but his methods were proven right. On top of that right wing regimes have succeded all around the world,and brought prosperity to former poor countries. You cant say the same thing about any lefties regime in all the XX century.

Wow you really need to go back to

I will go there when you give me a single argument. For the moment I just recienved ad hominems and meme answers.

holy shit how is it no true scotsman if it doesn't fit the definition??

>a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
This is communism. THE USSR DID NEITHER OF THESE THINGS, and neither has any other society on earth. Please stop spreading misinformation about my ideology.

Marx said that socialism would involve "the state being controlled by the workers." Was the USSR worker controlled, or was it totalitarian and controlled by a small elite? It wasn't even socialist. If it's not socialist at the very least, it's not left.

Also, state capitalism in the USSR and the PRC are what allowed those countries to be extremely successful. The PRC is a country that absolutely tops the United States and it's state capitalist. Yes they did a lot of bad things, but the result is good.

Now we play the game using your logic.

Like, how the hell do you think Russia industrialized? That didn't happen recently, and if you say it industrialized under the recent 1991-present regime you need to go back to

Stop knocking Pinochet, his free helicopter ride program did wonders for Chile's economy.

>THE USSR DID NEITHER OF THESE THINGS
Lenin tried that,and it went so wrong that he had to liberalize the economy. That is why the USSR moved to a planned economy,because the meme ideology that Lenin preached killed production,and Russia saw one of the biggest fall of production in history.

Literally, this belongs in /pol/

"Lenin tried that,and it went so wrong that he had to liberalize the economy."
Let me pose a thought experiment for you:
How do you collectivize industry without industry to collectivize?

I'm waiting.

Right, you can't.

Lenin realized that you need to create industry in order for it to be possible to institute communism, and so he implemented state capitalist policies. Stalin continued them, created a heavily industrialized state, but decided against handing power over to the workers.

Not leftists.

Also >Lenin tried that,and it went so wrong that he had to liberalize the economy. That is why the USSR moved to a planned economy
What? Lenin never tried "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed", not even partial workers control of production. The ussr started with a planned economy.

El Salvador was run by the right from the 70s-2006. The gang infestation in the country happened during their time and they didn't do shit. Let's not forget the 25 million from Taiwan that the right wing president Flores ran away and was wanted with and was wanted. Or in Guatemala, their righty president was ousted for corruption charges. And the shithole the right wing government in Honduras has created after the US backed coup of a democratically elected moderate-left president in 2009.

Lets break this into pieces:
>Also, state capitalism in the USSR and the PRC are what allowed those countries to be extremely successful.
Not really. Russia was starting to do pretty well under the Tsars until Lenin came and totally annihilated the economy. The USSR rised,because there was a huge void of power left after knocking Germany,France and Britain out of the equation. PCR did pretty terrible until they opened their markets,and basically copied (more or less)Singapore's model.
>The PRC is a country that absolutely tops the United States and it's state capitalist.
How? An American earns 9 times what a Chinese does,and China is in the middle of a huge debt and credit bubble
>Yes they did a lot of bad things, but the result is good.
The results were mediocre until they applied mixed policies
>Now we play the game using your logic
You failed horribly.

Russia industrialized under Nicholas II.

>Lenin realized that you need to create industry in order for it to be possible to institute communism, and so he implemented state capitalist policies
Lenin dropped production to its minimum. He was a moron. Stalin did all the work. Tsarist Russia was improving a lot btw.

>El Salvador was run by the right from the 70s-2006. The gang infestation in the country happened during their time and they didn't do shit. Let's not forget the 25 million from Taiwan that the right wing president Flores ran away and was wanted with and was wanted. Or in Guatemala, their righty president was ousted for corruption charges. And the shithole the right wing government in Honduras has created after the US backed coup of a democratically elected moderate-left president in 2009.
>Right wing goverment
>Populists that apply socialist policies,but hug crosses.
Nah m8. Your definition of right wing is pretty off. The only right wing countries south of The US are Panama,Colombia,Chile and Paraguay. The rest are just socialist countries with a populists that hugs crosses or claims to fight for the people

>How do you collectivize industry without industry to collectivize?
There was industry. Also the land can be distributed,or even better,LET WORKERS CREATE INDUSTRY. But Lenin knew that it was impossible,as the theoretical left is a huge meme based on arbitrary definitions that rely on nothing but emotions.

>i literally don't know anything about latin american history

So you are telling me that El Salvadora has a deceliped market economy,and doesnt have huge tariffs and lots of populists in the right,that apply mainly lefties policies?

>There was industry.
Not enough industry to sustain the country nor to keep it competitive.

> Also the land can be distributed,
??? That's what happened?

>LET WORKERS CREATE INDUSTRY.
Literally what I would've advocated for if I were there.

>But Lenin knew that it was impossible
[citation needed]

>. But Lenin knew that it was impossible,as the theoretical left is a huge meme based on arbitrary definitions
Like what? Perhaps you just didn't understand what you read.

>Lenin dropped production to its minimum.
[citation needed]

>Russia industrialized under Nicholas II.
No, actually, industrialization involves moving your economy away from being primarily agrarian. By the time the revolution came around it was still in the process of slowly industrializing, and was still primarily agrarian.

>Russia was starting to do pretty well under the Tsars
... Nicolas II's reign was plagued with inefficiency and social instability.

>How? An American earns 9 times what a Chinese does,and China is in the middle of a huge debt and credit bubble
You're not looking at their economic history.
between 2006 and 2013 China's GDP per capita increased by 300%. America has experienced no such growth recently.
We'll see what happens to their economy.

>The results were mediocre until they applied mixed policies
Purely state capitalist policies. There wasn't a hint of leftism in the USSR. And they were hugely successful. Capitalism is for industrialization. Communism is for post-industrial societies.

> Lefties regimes
Scandinavia seems pretty fine to me

kek no

Lol no Pinochet did nothing.
Only when he left and was booted out did things really change. Guy had to get a crash course on the very things he opposed because he didn't know what it was.

>Only when he left and was booted out did things really change
This.

Things changed before he left, idiots. The changes he made in the '80s took effect after he left office.

For Austria and Hungary it is because they're robbed of resources. They need mutually compatible raw resources to function well as a developed nation.
For Poland I don't think there is any excuse resource wise.
Czech get deserve what they get, fuck communist TITO partisands. Czech: Genocide of Sudetenland.
Romania and Bulgaria keep selling themselves out to communists.
Romania has good resources and port cities, so they have no excuse except their own lasy people. They are too pussy to work in mining.

You act as if Marx was the only socialist in history.

>Marx. A Jew.
Marxism was a Jewish invention of global domination meant to destabilize Europe.

>You're not looking at their economic history.
between 2006 and 2013 China's GDP per capita increased by 300%. America has experienced no such growth recently.
We'll see what happens to their economy.

Wat is Solow model.

>There wasn't a hint of leftism in the USSR.

Bullshit, there were huge collectivist tendencies in the USSR as they were highly nationalist.

And yet the real destabilization was done by conservative monarchs waging war against each other. Who would guess that?

> literal communist guerilla
> not leftist

Christ.

China is aging incredibly fast.

No, everything went to shit after the French Revolution unleashed the dogs of Liberalism. If the USA hadn't separated and become a Republic, everything would of be pretty stable.

The real destabilization was done by communists, Jews alienated by nationalism which sought to assimilate them.
To say communist is a codeword for Jews, as most of them were communist leaders. The communism revolutions in Russia, Spain, Austria and Bavaria were started by Communist Jews. Hitler was blamed for being aggressive when he was fending off communism in order to save Europe.

The destabilization of Europe 1910-1945 was done by the USA and Great Britain.

If the USA, a Republic Oligarchy, stayed out of European wars everything would of been fine.

Republics ruin everything.

USA is at the technological frontier, China was/is catching up with capital formation and implementing previously discovered technologies while returning to trend output after years of low output due to state policies. This guy gets it.

Liberalism = generally good
Communism/socialism = generally bad
Reaction = generally bad

>our board

Not OP and not /pol/, been here from day 1, but this is certainly not YOUR board you /leftypol/ cuntrag.

The catch is that Pinochet wasn't bad.

> The communism revolutions
Was only possible because monarchies going full retard with fucking World War I. Communists was able to do revolution only because everything was already destabilized to the point where even army couldn't function properly.