Why are leftists so good at war?

Is Trump a progressive? By your definition, he is.

>crowned voluntsrily

Read history. His entire historical function was spreading revolutionary liberalism throughout the various aristocratic societies of Europe, bringing enormous social and economic reforms to every country his armies past through.

Even though Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo the seventh coalition was unable to fully reverse his emancipatory reforms in retaken territories.

The Napoleonic Wars are pretty interesting because most of his offensives involved massive armies of workers and idealists pretty spontaneously emerging to help the French invaders defeat their aristocratic government. The only places this didn't happen were Russia and Spain, both of them very feudal countries with populations hostile to republicanism.

not him but election trump in terms of the coal mine issue but right now cant really say that can we

>what is caesaropapism??

Trump's whole schtick is returning us to the legal and economic conditions of the 80s -- weaker regulations, no outsourcing, more entrepreneurship

Milton Friedman, if he had power would spread an even more radical form of liberalism. Is he a leftist?

So you have no idea what the words mean. Got it.

The change Trump advocates is change by returning to a previous era. Or at least the idea of returning to a previous era. The Napoleonic Codes were not "making France great again" because they went against pretty much every aspect of Fuedal/Monarchical French governance.

He won the election based on improving immigration policy and reforming Washington bureaucracy.
If anything, the candidate of the status quo was Clinton, who wished to keep policy as it was.

>leftist
>progressive
You keep spamming these words, but I don't think you know what they mean.

Typical leftists/libercucks revisionism. You people really are no better than right wing revisionists on such matter.

Oh fucking get over yourselves. The man advocated for court appointed defense attorneys in 1804. Compare his views to that of the Hapsburg Monarchy at the time and honestly try to call him a conservative.

>Napoleon
>leftist

Louis IX introduced the presumption of innocence. Was he a leftist?

You're comparing Milton Friedman, a man from the 20th century, to Napoleon. Classical Liberalism isn't leftist today, because it has since become the status quo. Back in the early 19th century, it was a much more leftist ideology in comparison to its contemporaries.

>Paris Commune
>post WW1 Communist Hungary
>spartacist uprising and communist Bavaria
and Im just listing aome notable ones
weak meme OP
for his time he was on the leftist side of the spectrum, the modern leftism hes grouping him in with really didnt even exist at the time

Napoleon is a leftist because he introduced liberal reforms. Why is furthering liberalism not making Friedman a leftist?

>for his time he was on the leftist side of the spectrum, the modern leftism hes grouping him in with really didnt even exist at the time

But how do you define who is in the right-wing or in the left-wing?

Considering he reigned in the 13th century? Yes, very much so. At least that particular stance of his was. Politics isn't a static spectrum people. What was radical leftism 2000 years ago can look completely bipartisan by today's standards.

>and Im just listing aome notable ones
All of those were minor compared to the ones OP listed.

Can you read? Because Napoleon introduce liberal reforms in a time when classical liberalism was not the status quo. Friedman lives in a time in which what counts as "centrism" would have been considered far more radical 200 years ago. Putting forward the idea that people are not born with the essence of a slave used to be radical. Now it's just expected.

Tell me, how do you define what is left-wing?

Friedman proposed radical reforms for the society he lived. Reforms that in his opinion would make society progress. Some of which were adopted and which indeed made society progress.
But yet, he is called a conservative.

Or should we change him to the progressive side?

You just automatically assume everything "progressive" must be "leftists" and everything "leftists" must be "progressive" like most libercucks today(even though "progressive" becomes very hallow nowadays). It's the very sign of systematic indoctrination(aka brainwash) in modern society, a bit like those dystopia novels.

Pic related, my favourite leftist

In relation to what is standard for the time. Advocating for a return to some aspect of the past is generally conservative, and advocating for newer systems is generally liberal. To give an example, I would say that many of the artists and philosophers of the Renaissance were conservatives. They were harkening back to a bygone era using them to critique the values and styles of more recent eras. I would also consider Martin Luther a conservative for the same reason.

Then, would you agree that anarchists are conservative?

The extreme right desires no government at all over them, yes.

The extreme left desires government over everything. All totalitarianism is of the Left.

Again, you have to look at the context of Milton Friedman's propositions. Friedman's reforms were based off of reducing government control over the economy. Friedman lived in post New Deal America. In his time the idea of increased government regulation was the newer ideology in comparison to laissez faire capitalism which was now the older ideology. He was supporting a general return to form for Liberalism.

>All totalitarianism is of the Left.

Napoleon was a republican, and he was also a nationalist, a patriot, an emperor, and an expansionist. These "ideologies" are right wing back then, and they're still right wing today. He was just not so "right" compare to other right wing such as royalists.

Your beloved American president such as Thomas Jefferson also didn't think he's leftist. Moreover, 2 of most famous worshipers of Napoleon, Hitler and Mussolini, were all right wing, and they didn't considered him as leftist as well.

We live in an era where Milton Friedman's ideas won. We live in a liberal era.

Bernie wants a return to a "New Deal style economy". Is Bernie a conservative?

He did propose UDI.

So, he was a progressive after all?

>Napoleon was a republican, and he was also a nationalist, a patriot
None of that is right wing by the standards of the early 1800s. Not even close. They're right wing today, but that doesn't matter because Napoleon didn't live in today's world.
>He was just not so "right" compare to other right wing such as royalists
Considering how much other European monarchs were opposed to him and his ideology, I find this very hard to believe.
>Your beloved American president such as Thomas Jefferson also didn't think he's leftist
No shit. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most leftist people of his day. Hardly anyone would have been a leftist in his eyes.
>Moreover, 2 of most famous worshipers of Napoleon, Hitler and Mussolini, were all right wing
Wow, two guys who lived in the mid 20th century. What a fucking surprise.

Any retard who calls Louis IX left-wing should avoid talking about history.

You just keep insisting what you believe like a typical liberal revisionist, but truth is Napoleon is not you precious "leftist" idol. And Thomas Jefferson, Hitler and Mussolini seem all agree with this.

>We live in an era where Milton Friedman's ideas won. We live in a liberal era.
I don't think you can claim that with complete certainty. We still have a lot of influence from FDR's economics like social security and bailouts. Milton Friedman's ideal economic system is still a far cry from what the US currently has.

Well, he wasn't conservative.

Louis IX was left wing.

>Napoleon
Had three times the manpower of his enemies, and still managed to get BTFO by the Anglos, infamous for the shittiness of their armies. Probably the most overrated commander in history.

>Bolsheviks
Couldn't even defeat Poland. Lost every major engagement againt the Entente, only survived because they just decided to leave.

>World war 2
The Nazis were socialist too. Of course leftists will win a war where both sides are far-left.

>50s and 60s
USA BTFO Communist rebels everywhere it cared to do so, from Vietnam to Egypt to Indonesia.

Fuck off back to leftypol

No, that's regression.

He's only conservative in the context of the US understanding of left and right. It's hard to explain but here it's the opposite of the rest of the world which still refers to liberalism in the classical sense.

>America won against commies everywhere xD

Monarchy is inherently right-wing. It doesn't matter what one does with their power, what makes them left or right is the amount of power one has; how power is distributed. Left is decentralized and right is centralized.

I'm him and Trump is the literal dictionary definition of someone reactionary, "of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change"

Then is Friedman a progressive and Bernie a conservative?

In my country, he is called an arch-conservative.

It is stupid to apply right wing and left wing labels on 13th century politics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_westward_offensive_of_1918–19

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War

youtube.com/watch?v=aN73N9EjoM4

Now that is some great historical revisionism OP

Obviously not, because liberalism by 1940 was no longer a revolutionary and emancipatory paradigm that was bringing democracy to despotic aristocracies, at least in the West. These societies already had established liberal institutions.

The countries Napoleon invaded did not

Why? His main policy is reforming immigration and changing it from the status quo.

But he is the candidate of change. If you wanted a continuation of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama, you would vote Clinton. He was voted to change the traditional politics.

...

...

Milton Friedman lived in a society he considered not liberal enough and wanted to reform that society to make it more liberal. His ideological opponents wanted to keep the status quo of his society.

youtube.com/watch?v=TNdy0ea6gc4

Why are leftist so shit at terminology?

...

Nationalism back then was a genuinely new and progressive idea, because it was based on egalitarian conceptions of nationhood that weren't compatible with traditional aristocratic ideas that viewed citizens as personal subjects to a monarch.

...

Why are LARP'ing poles always so cringy?

Better question is why they are shit at everything else.
They only thrive in conflict, let them rule and it's all downhill. They are like Orks, except unlikeable and with marxism instead of spores to spread around.

Stalin, Lenin, Tukhachevsky, and Trotsky also admired Napoleon you mongoloid

Movement toward equality is leftism, the preservation of hierarchy is rightism. That's all it means and all it has ever meant.

>Typical leftists/libercucks revisionism.
The term left/right literally comes from the french revolution you fucking retard. It's more correct to call Napoleon leftist than Stalin

Trump claimed to be a progressive, yes, but he has yet to deliver.
And lesser regulation is fundamentally a liberalist property.

>Movement toward equality is leftism, the preservation of hierarchy is rightism. That's all it means and all it has ever meant.

Come on dude, we may have put a shitload of commies in the dirt in 'Nam but we failed to stop the spread of cummunism. I guess if we pulled out the stops and went full blown total war against Vietnam we could've won but it didn't happen. If you really want to get the Lefties panties in a bunch, mention their sad and pathetic attempts at a revolution in the US

>Be in the Weatherman undergroud
>raised in a rich New York Jewish family
>start LARPing as a commie guerrilla
>try to recruit actual working class men, blacks and minorities
>mfw they BTFO you so hard you end up hospitalized almost everytime

Best part is we're seeing this happen all over again today, only reason faggots like the ones who browse leftypol haven't been completely stomped to the ground is because they have Social Media this time around the make themselves seem a lot stronger than they really are

Republicanism and nationalism were pretty much the definition of leftism back then.

>Republicanism
>Dissolves the republic to crown himself emperor
You're a very special guy, user.

ITT retards, Napolean was definitely a RADICAL for his time, favouring social and economic policies that were far different to the existing dominant ones. He promoted enlightenment philosophy and even codified it in his laws, secured the abolishment of feudalism, promoted religious tolerance and continued to support most of the values of revolutionary France. He himself was a supporter of the Jacobins and was almost killed in the aftermath of the Thermidor Reaction (RIP De Saint-Just you were too beautiful for this world ;_;)

so he's definitely a radical. Whether he was a progressive tho is kinda debatable as he was trying to emulate the Roman Empire to a great degree. IMO that's a traditionalist position

They existed at a time when the mass army was in its ascendancy and the powers-that-be were averse to them. A leftist today wanting a "mass army" is gonna find itself in a difficult position.

>we failed to stop the spread of cummunism

Actually, we succeeded greatly. South Vietnam never fell to communism when we were around. It was just that the hippies started whining so we decided to leave.

Your problem is that you think the history of the world is that of a constant improvement which the "progressives" defeating the "conservatives" and bringing progress. Which is not the truth.

Also
>No shit. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most leftist people of his day. Hardly anyone would have been a leftist in his eyes. I'm not an American, but my impression is that the American Founding Fathers tried to emulate Republican Rome. According to one definition here, wouldn't that make them reactionary?

Your problem is that you think the history of the world is that of a constant improvement which the "progressives" defeating the "conservatives" and bringing progress. Which is not the truth.

Also
>No shit. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most leftist people of his day. Hardly anyone would have been a leftist in his eyes.

I'm not an American, but my impression is that the American Founding Fathers tried to emulate Republican Rome. According to one definition here, wouldn't that make them reactionary?

Know your place Bolshevik.

Let me rephrase that
>why are russians so good at war
>why is napoleon so good at war

That's retarded. Anarchism was originally a left wing conception, desiring no authority whether it be economic, religious, or political.

It wouldn't, Rome was long gone, and they were basing themselves on a utopian version of the Republic.

He's technically not entirely wrong, but I personally prefer the Left-Right divide as a matter of your perception regarding the world and the natural world, right-wingers seeing it as fair, sacred, and worth preserving, while left-wingers see it as naturally unfair and in need of human change.

Find literally any flaw with that statement

But Anarchism aim for a return to the past. That would make them reactionary

Please tell me this is bait.

>It wouldn't, Rome was long gone, and they were basing themselves on a utopian version of the Republic.

How many years does it take for "wanting to go back to the past" to not be reactionary anymore?

The current American left-wing is very hierarchic and elitist.

No, the Bolsheviks absolutely defeated Poland. Poles declared independence, invaded Russia with the Whites, and got BTFO. They simply prevented most ethtnic Polish territories being retaken in the Soviet counteroffensive

I know this post was made by an American

That's because all American politics is within the framework of liberalism. Even still, the Democrats are somewhat less hierarchical than Republicans in their conception of an ideal society.

This divide is much more stark in Europe. Compare Corbyn's genuinely radical egalitarianism to May's aristocratic traditionalism.

I'd say you'd need to go so far back that an imitation of said society would be more based on a mythicized version of it than anything.

Also, I'd argue that using said imitation to reinforce already existing characteristics of the status quo comes of as reactionary, while using them to change into something new (as were the the American, French, and Haitian revolutions at the time) comes off as more progressive.