Good read. But I don't necessarily agree with the correlation of admiring defeat as a direct connection to Christianity, but rather the way the west is conditioned to find a way to win. If some Socialist movement failed, it is glorified in its failure because the hyper competitive West must extract some kind of victory. To utterly lose is to potentially admit eternal defeat and abandon a path as impossible, so already downtrodden Western leftists are keen to extract a moral victory or sense of heroic martyrdom.
Also much of what would account for leftist celebration of these failures, is actually Liberals co-opting historic evidence. For example I interpret the celebration of non-violent means that have yet to produce any revolution as simply Liberalism. If one would cheer on the status quo while dreaming of a slightly more perfect utopia, then they are going to romanticize the people that fought for a better future, only to be "cut down by reality". Liberals celebrate these people for their ideas but not their actions, unless of course their actions accounted for nothing. If they ennoble a failed leader or idea, it is because they want to celebrate the status quo crushing those who would challenge it, but admire their "heart being in the right place". Or Liberals interpret the fallen hero or movement's actions as a means for reinforcing the challenged status quo, as opposed to changing it.
It does explain some level of psychological copium that is used by Western leftists to glorify defeat, but I don't think it is the driving force behind the defeat itself. I would presume the reason Socialism doesn't get off the ground in the West is the lack of material challenge that it's populations experience by benefiting from their imperialism. No collectives form from a need for survival unlike the East and Global South that are subjected to imperialism and poverty. For these regions, Socalism is a source of strength. While for the West, Socialism is an aesthetic or higher moral purity, which is the reason it never goes anywhere. It isn't seen through the lens of survival, but often just contrarian rejection or individualistic rebellion of a system that isn't serving that persons best interests.
Though I absolutely agree with your sentiment that these ineffective tactics are hammered into children at a young age to be admired for their virtue and lack of results. But I would regard that as institutions of capital protecting themselves from any future overthrow, not because "it was what Jesus would do".
Good read. But I don't necessarily agree with the correlation of admiring defeat as a direct connection to Christianity, but rather the way the west is conditioned to find a way to win. If some Socialist movement failed, it is glorified in its failure because the hyper competitive West must extract some kind of victory. To utterly lose is to potentially admit eternal defeat and abandon a path as impossible, so already downtrodden Western leftists are keen to extract a moral victory or sense of heroic martyrdom.
Also much of what would account for leftist celebration of these failures, is actually Liberals co-opting historic evidence. For example I interpret the celebration of non-violent means that have yet to produce any revolution as simply Liberalism. If one would cheer on the status quo while dreaming of a slightly more perfect utopia, then they are going to romanticize the people that fought for a better future, only to be "cut down by reality". Liberals celebrate these people for their ideas but not their actions, unless of course their actions accounted for nothing. If they ennoble a failed leader or idea, it is because they want to celebrate the status quo crushing those who would challenge it, but admire their "heart being in the right place". Or Liberals interpret the fallen hero or movement's actions as a means for reinforcing the challenged status quo, as opposed to changing it.
It does explain some level of psychological copium that is used by Western leftists to glorify defeat, but I don't think it is the driving force behind the defeat itself. I would presume the reason Socialism doesn't get off the ground in the West is the lack of material challenge that it's populations experience by benefiting from their imperialism. No collectives form from a need for survival unlike the East and Global South that are subjected to imperialism and poverty. For these regions, Socalism is a source of strength. While for the West, Socialism is an aesthetic or higher moral purity, which is the reason it never goes anywhere. It isn't seen through the lens of survival, but often just contrarian rejection or individualistic rebellion of a system that isn't serving that persons best interests.
Though I absolutely agree with your sentiment that these ineffective tactics are hammered into children at a young age to be admired for their virtue and lack of results. But I would regard that as institutions of capital protecting themselves from any future overthrow, not because "it was what Jesus would do".