>>809871
The "Classical Left", which must be what you're referring to, instead of the "De Facto Left", which is what the Left is today, simply doesn't exist anymore.
It lost traction everywhere and got replaced by IdPol. IdPol and "Cultural Marxism" is general, is just Marxist (Hegelian) rhetoric expanded.
They're both the same thing, they're both used as disruptive agents as well. Their tactics are the same, their core peoples are the same, their trajectories are the same.
But it's hard for "Classical Leftists" to understand that because of the nature of it all. "Classical Leftists" see their movement as self-sufficient and as an ideology of its own, when in fact it's not, it's just a tool, and once it got exhausted, new ones replaced them.
But "Tool" for who? Well, the ruling class, Bankers and Elites - A revolt of the Economic Materialistic Class against the Monarchical/Local Spiritual Aristocracy.
Communism and Capitalism then, are quite the same, with Materialistic doctrines, being one of the most simple methods to transform a Capitalist system in a Communist one just stamping a 100% Taxation at everything and transferring responsibilities to the State therefore.
>But Muh Anarchism final destiantion
It's never going to happen, it was not made to happen and human nature prevents it from happening. If an Anarcho-Something order were to emerge anywhere, in one generation or two an hierarchical system and private ownership would follow.
In the end, again, it's hard for a "Classical Leftist" to see what's going on because they trust their movement as a legitimate force for good, when it's actually just a Capitalist Tool (one out of many) against a Sovereign Nation/Regime. What happened in Russia, for instance, was not based on the people's will, but on Bankers financing the destruction of the Romanov Dynasty, which held 1/4 of all the World's gold, which was a serious threat to the Jewish Banking Cartel (the Romanovs hated Jews, historically) and that were setting Russia to be the World Superpower in a few decades (The whole "peasant" shit people keep repeating is due to the Local "Feudal Lords" not wanting to abdicate of their lands - the Romanovs tried to free the peasants many times, just to see their base of support, the agricultural lords, turning against them. In fact, the Revolution was only possible due to the capitulation of these Lords, who forsaken the Romanovs due to their peasant reforms made by Stolypin and Witte).