Why was the global liberal revolution more successful than the

>>1622738
>>>/pol/

>>1622740
Good goy

>>1622738
lib-cap works

soc doesn't

>>1622738
It should have just not come, given it is a fucking abortion and all.

>>1622740
Political history is history. But this thread isn't just about political history, it is also about revolutions, which have military and social aspects to them, which are definitely history.

You il/lit/erate retards can just fuck off back to your leftist containment board.

>>1622738
>More successful
World is filled with failed democracies honey.

Capitalism works.

>>1622738
Was it really though? The "global liberal revolution" only really affected a few countries directly, like France and the New World countries. Any other country that was liberalized by this "revolution" had either done it gradually, like the UK, or was forced into it, like Germany.

This is the result of liberal democracy being a clearly superior system to feudalism and the shit-tier political systems of Europe at the time. Liberal democracies could out-produce, out-match, and provide higher standards of living then their monarchist rivals. That is why some countries became more liberal gradually. Additionally, liberal democracies could create more powerful armies, which is how it spread across to other European countries who were forced into it.

Now compare this "global liberal revolution" to the "global socialist revolution." Socialism took hold in Russia and China, two of the worlds most populous nations. Already this "revolution" is more successful than that of the liberal revolutions, it took hold in a far larger portion of the world. However, over time, it became obvious that socialism was a blatantly weaker system than liberal democracy, so the concept did not spread to most of the world.

>>1622740
?

>>1622924
Works for who? Certainly joy the majority of folks

>>1622930
Socialism is just the scientific application of liberal democratic ideals desu senpai

The USSR and Chips failed to build socialism because Marxism can't be applied to an illiberal environment

File: image.jpg (57KB, 542x535px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 542x535px

K

>>1622738
In the United States, at least, the liberal revolution wasn't a shake up at all. Institutions of representative government had existed in the thirteen colonies since the beginning, and in Britain since the 13th century.

>>1622944
There are more working democracies than there are working socialist countries

>>1622937
At this point /his/ is more leftist than /lit/

All the threads not about Jesus are about communism

Socialism turns out to not work as well as capitalism for creating prosperity. Capitalism combined with a liberal social order (like no hereditary nobility) creates good societies, so that's what haooened.

>>1623074
Socialism is the best way to lift the abject poor out of their situation, just look at Cuba.

Problem is that there's little way to catch up to the most developed capitalist economies, especially with a centrally planned economy that offers less room for innovation.