I used to think this, but I'm starting to question my assumptions. Saying that 'extreme left' theory has been shown unachievable is perhaps a bit too broad a s

I used to think this, but I'm starting to question my assumptions. Saying that 'extreme left' theory has been shown unachievable is perhaps a bit too broad a statement. The left actually split over the very issue that then led to this 'failure', namely the idea that one can impose one's left-wing ideals through violent revolution. A significant portion of the 'left' believed that (violently) removing a system through revolution would leave a vacuum that would be quickly filled by a system similar to the one removed, instead of whatever utopian ideal that led to this revolution. That seems to have been correct. Furthermore, this group argues that one inherent problem of the 'left' that won (and then 'failed') was that they were too focused on economic equality, and, in a way, tried to implement a left-wing ideology on an incompatible foundation. I might have gotten some (or much) of this wrong though. My apologies if that's the case. My point is merely that they'd argue that it's primarily a particular strain of 'left-wing' though (state socialism) that failed, and that left-wing libertarianism is equally untried as right-wing libertarianism (well, they'd argue it's been successfully tried but destroyed by outside forces). And there are some important differences between the two strains of libertarianism.