In the past 4 decades Iran has taken some socialist leaps!
for example they have a universal basic income of 3 US dollars per month that every citizen is entitled to.

Pol Pot renounced communism in the early 80s and said yeah we are just nationalists btw

"We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way."

The shared future being collective suicide

communism 1 gorillion dead

whats yalls thoughts on the non aligned movement

obviously ended in disaster everywhere it was implemented but more generally or specifically

Not left
Not right

Forward

I feel like since they were primarily Nationalist due to being anti-colonial revolutions it hindered their ability to develop a political structure more resistant to subjugation to Western Capitalism but I haven't read enough into them to elaborate

At the end of the day it was destined to fail because of its ideological incoherency, having people like Suharto to Fidel as chairmen lol

But they did some very good things when it comes to apartheid, Palestine and criticizing US militarism

A stronger NAM today was a net positive and still would be a net positive for its member states

Better non-aligned than pro-US

Yes, it leads to a basket, but at what cost to the communal spirit?

Feels weird to say the Brits lost the American Revolution since in practice they lost nothing and gained 1000x nore

The UK and US bourgeoisie have been really close ever since With the exception of 1812

WW1 made them a lot closer

The positions might have switched but the relationships been overwhelmingly positive for 237 of the following 239 years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

in reality they never lost. everything the brits do is strategic.
feels good living in a common wealth state!
If you rep the union jack you get free health care boy!

i know that the PKP doesnt even recognize the american revolution as one as they say it was simply bourgeois to bourgeois

Dutch and French empires: Internalized

American protection costs: Externalized

Competition: NEUTRALIZED

Well saying they've never lost is getting into Larouche-brain territory

Who's been winning since Bunsen found the blue flame?

I should've read the username

That's a bit anachronistic I think. The American Revolution was progressive for its time. The American bourgeoisie replaced the British feudal-aristocratic order. However, feudalism in the USA never really settled in because it was controlled by the British bourgeoisie in the first place. And of course, since it was a liberal revolution, it never got over the contradictions that private property entail, which is one of the main critiques Marx and Engels had from the beginning: Liberalism couldn't fulfill on its own promises as long as emancipation from private property didn't occur

But there was no British feudal aristocratic order in America to begin with. All that happened was to change the colonies' governance from parliament to congress

In my view there was, but it wasn't deeply entrenched (which made the revolution possible in the first place) since it was the early capitalists and landowners who were economically dominant. The contradictions between these two classes is what allowed the at time nominally weaker class, the bourgeoisie, to succeed in the first place (same as in France a few years later).