There is no single "they". Half of leftist theorists argue with the other half more than three quarters of the time, the other quarter they argue with themselve

There is no single "they". Half of leftist theorists argue with the other half more than three quarters of the time, the other quarter they argue with themselves. And as for revolution, context is king. To the Southern slave holders, emancipationists were radicals intent on overthrowing the very foundations of civilization itself. The birth myth of the United States is revolution (though I admit we may have been better off eventually going the route that Canada took). Of course it's serious stuff, people who try to figure out the world generally do take themselves seriously. A bunch of people sit around and try to figure out what the structures that we create are, how they actually operate, and if that is helpful or harmful to the human beings within those structures, serious stuff indeed. Their conclusions may be right or wrong or a mixture of both. Criticism, however, does not properly take the form of 'this idea is produced by an academic leftist, therefore it is bad and wrong'. Where's the marketplace of ideas in that? Self-avowed conservative intellectuals have been wrong in the past as well. They have no less wanted to produce 'revolutions'. They have no less produced disastrous and failed revolutions. And if we want to say that things shouldn't change from what they are now, at all, then that might be the most radical proposition of all, because it has never before happened in history, though many have tried it because they too thought their place in history perfect.