The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi), and in general European integration; ending apartheid in South Africa; 1991 economic reforms in India; Deng Xiaoping’s socialist market economy in China which lifted millions from destitution; Chile’s transition to democracy; the labor-capital compromise in Scandinavia which allows them to have very free markets and very strong welfare systems at the same time.
The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi): Adenauer and De Gasperi were the leaders of the respective christian-democratic parties and led the transition of their countries away from 2 of the worst dictatorships humankind has ever seen
ending apartheid in South Africa: F. W. De Klerk was South Africa’s last apartheid president and although he represented the party which created apartheid, he acted as a centrist. He sidelined the far right wings of his party, released Nelson Mandela’s and ended the system. Nelson Mandela also adopted pretty reconciliatory policies once he became president.
1991 economic reforms in India: the centrist Indian National Congress party adopted sweeping reforms that enabled India to face the crisis it was going through and speed up its GDP per capita growth.
I don’t have time to finish but you can easily find more information about the rest in any contemporary history textbook or on the internet.
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.
That’s right, the centrists are conservatives and the so-called “conservatives” are really regressives at best, plenty of them fascists.
We don’t just call everyone we don’t like fascists. But uh, them folks are fascists.
Many of the greatest political advancements in the history of humanity were achieved by people you’d call “centrists”.
Such as?
The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi), and in general European integration; ending apartheid in South Africa; 1991 economic reforms in India; Deng Xiaoping’s socialist market economy in China which lifted millions from destitution; Chile’s transition to democracy; the labor-capital compromise in Scandinavia which allows them to have very free markets and very strong welfare systems at the same time.
I could go on.
HA! Sure, buddy, sure, we’ll let you call that centrism. Do you need help finding your way back to the children’s table?
Point out which of these don’t have elements of “centrism” plz
Point out where they do.
I don’t have time to finish but you can easily find more information about the rest in any contemporary history textbook or on the internet.
Sure.
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.