Russian Revolution 1917
Chinese Revolution 1949
Cuban Revolution 1959
If capitalism inevitably leads to Marxist revolutions, why has the rate of revolutions been slowing down? Why have successful revolutions only happened in backwards societies and never advanced capitalist economies?
I heard that certain sects of leftoids support the new soft imperialism like Israel because a liberal Israel WOULD bring democracy and break up the feudal patriarchies of the Middle East. Following this reasoning is it really so wrong that the US led and sponsored every single socialist (and fascist) dictator of South America?
Liberals go home
what the fuck? fucking kill yourself
Advanced Capitalist countries have Representative "Democracies", and Freedom of Expression which feeds into the idea that people have control over their lives. Your master is harder to see.
Define progressive. If this was done in US it probably includes literally everything to the left of the Republican Party.
The only thing the US sponsored was reactionary forces opposing them.
I never stated anything to the contrary. I'm debating the notion that a proletariat revolution is the inevitable consequence of capitalism when all evidence we have points to the opposite. A lot of leftists like to belittle "reformists" because they are somehow detracting from the supposed revolution that is always right around the corner. In the mean time we should all suffer more because this will make the revolution come faster they say, but there is no evidence that points to this conclusion that advances of capitalism lead to revolution. If we look at history revolution seems to become a more and more distant possibility than a growing inevitability.
Because Marx is wrong
Who's argued that? . No one on this board. Have a read of the Overproduction Vs. Unprofitabiliy thread. Lurk moar.