At the time of those political advancements, it was progressive ideology. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been advancements, it would have been conserving the norm, dumbass.
Not really, I provided some examples to some other user where they were clearly “centrists”. There were people who leaned more on both sides and the advancement was achieved by someone who was more moderate.
Of course it was, because people resist change. The left has to settle for small wins everyday. You are only arguing with yourself the more you explain your point here.
Centrist wins’ don’t exist. There’s only progress or stagnation—and ‘centrism’ is just conservatism with better PR. The left’s job isn’t to ‘win’ elections—it’s to make sure the baseline keeps moving left, even if it’s inch by inch. In Italy, the PCI didn’t get revolution, but its demands forced the right to adopt welfare, labor rights, and anti-fascism just to stay in power. That’s not centrism. That’s the left setting the terms of the fight.
The right doesn’t ‘win’ by preserving the status quo—they just delay the inevitable. Every policy shift, no matter how small, is a left victory because it proves the goalposts can move. The alternative? Stagnation. And stagnation isn’t a win for anyone—it’s surrender.
None of those advances were made with a minority of support in society. Is the argument that the populace has since become more conservative?
I think what’s more likely is that people you’d consider “centrist” backed those changes. You’re dead set on characterizing this “centrist” entity that you have only vaguely defined to create an enemy that doesn’t exist.
I’m not sure what enemy I’ve created by pointing out progressive policies as… progressive. Even if it’s not as progressive as perhaps some would like at that time. It’s not so much of an “argument” when stating facts.
Perhaps clarify what point you’re attempting to make.
Don’t be dishonest, you did more than that. The enemy you’re creating is the “evil centrist”. Your own example does not support that simplistic view.
Achievements like Civil Rights didn’t come about because just a small part of the “left” pushed for it. It came about because the majority of the left stood for it. So no, you don’t get to take all the credit and YES, you’re splitting the party for no discernable reason.
All I’m saying is the left is the party of progress, period. It’s literally what we stand for. So if you feel like a villain choosing something in the middle of progress and whatever the conservatives are trying to, well, conserve, then perhaps that’s a you issue to work out.
You’ve made a lot of random clams that makes me think you’re confusing comments, so I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to make anymore, it seems you are infuriating yourself.
At the time of those political advancements, it was progressive ideology. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been advancements, it would have been conserving the norm, dumbass.
Not really, I provided some examples to some other user where they were clearly “centrists”. There were people who leaned more on both sides and the advancement was achieved by someone who was more moderate.
Of course it was, because people resist change. The left has to settle for small wins everyday. You are only arguing with yourself the more you explain your point here.
The “left” wanted very different things in most of these cases. For instance, in post-war Italy, it wanted a revolution and to join the Warsaw pact.
Plz explain to me how the examples I brought up aren’t “centrist” examples but examples of left victories.
Centrist wins’ don’t exist. There’s only progress or stagnation—and ‘centrism’ is just conservatism with better PR. The left’s job isn’t to ‘win’ elections—it’s to make sure the baseline keeps moving left, even if it’s inch by inch. In Italy, the PCI didn’t get revolution, but its demands forced the right to adopt welfare, labor rights, and anti-fascism just to stay in power. That’s not centrism. That’s the left setting the terms of the fight.
The right doesn’t ‘win’ by preserving the status quo—they just delay the inevitable. Every policy shift, no matter how small, is a left victory because it proves the goalposts can move. The alternative? Stagnation. And stagnation isn’t a win for anyone—it’s surrender.
None of those advances were made with a minority of support in society. Is the argument that the populace has since become more conservative?
I think what’s more likely is that people you’d consider “centrist” backed those changes. You’re dead set on characterizing this “centrist” entity that you have only vaguely defined to create an enemy that doesn’t exist.
I’m not sure what enemy I’ve created by pointing out progressive policies as… progressive. Even if it’s not as progressive as perhaps some would like at that time. It’s not so much of an “argument” when stating facts.
Perhaps clarify what point you’re attempting to make.
Don’t be dishonest, you did more than that. The enemy you’re creating is the “evil centrist”. Your own example does not support that simplistic view.
Achievements like Civil Rights didn’t come about because just a small part of the “left” pushed for it. It came about because the majority of the left stood for it. So no, you don’t get to take all the credit and YES, you’re splitting the party for no discernable reason.
All I’m saying is the left is the party of progress, period. It’s literally what we stand for. So if you feel like a villain choosing something in the middle of progress and whatever the conservatives are trying to, well, conserve, then perhaps that’s a you issue to work out.
You’ve made a lot of random clams that makes me think you’re confusing comments, so I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to make anymore, it seems you are infuriating yourself.