France had an enormous communist movement from the 1850s until the fucking 1970s, with failed communist takeovers in 1871 and 1968. In 1946, the French Communist Party won a 28% plurality in parliament. They pulled around 20% in every legislative election until 1981.
With such an impressive history, why did communism never succeed in France?
Because it's never succeeded anywhere?
good movie
You could also ask why was communism so popular in France?
FPBP
/thread
The communists supported the war in 1914, and the house of cards tumbled down.
The post war communist party stuck with Soviet policy even when it became deeply unpopular, and the house of cards came tumbling down.
French people never stay with one ideology for more than a decade. They get bored and try something else. And then come back to old ideas again. And move on again.
France is also the home of social democracy, and the circumstance were never so dire that the need for revolution seemed to outweigh loyalty to the Republic.
France knows as well as anyone how catastrophic revolutions can be, after all.
Comunisme can be better for France than capitalism, we have a lot of farmers and "handworkers". capitalism is good but not with the actual ressources of France
get rid of "'French" and it still works
We'll see about that
Revolutions certainly have, unless you're an autistic leftcom who believes Russia and China never had authentic communist revolutions
>With such an impressive history, why did communism never succeed in France?
Probably the same reasons it never succeeded anywhere
>Russia
>authentic
Nothing screams authentic like a bunch of bourgie kikes funded by the German empire exploiting a country in the middle of the war.
Neither has capitalism desu
There's not one capitalist society that is comfortable without being supported by the oppression of uncomfortable societies
Socialists shot themselves in the foot when they backed WW1. Every monster they've had to fight since then - Fascism, worldwide liberal democracy through democratic peace theory, and the multiple red scares were birthed in the specter of the Great War.
All you gained was Russia, and a temporary conquest at that. In doing so, you shattered the trust people in any other nation had in you.
tu quoque
Switzerland, Perhaps Chile, Singapore, Finland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Perhaps Canada, Netherlands, Belgium.
Most people consider these to be innoffensive capitalist nations without a large participation in aggressive foreign policy.
first the rural and urban populations didnt relaly coordinate, there were uprisings but the cities didnt back them up, then there were communes and takeovers but the countriside didnt reay participate, then the state made sure a lot of people get shot and stabbed and locked up and sent overseas, then after a while the welfare state started to be set up so the workers wouldnt realy have as much reason to revolt and no longer had 'nothing to loose but their chains', and the whole movement switched on one side to classic unionist politics as in 'well strike if you dont make a new contract assuring 6% payrise in the next 5 years', or student autism like 68
and 68 is pretty much it, after that the bubble sort of burst
Underrated post. The French Communist party didn't understand that ideology doesn't win votes.
Weren't Communist parties in Western Europe undermined after WWII? I heard they were popular.
I've read the CIA in the immediate years after WWII did covert operations in France and Italy trying to do as much damage to the leftist movements as they could. Supposedly the CIA helped local mafia with drug dealing, in return for the mafia dealing violently with leftists.
Chrsitian.ethos of thy neighbour prevailed
And why is this a bad thing again?
Darwinism is the force that drives life on this planet. Nullifying it is just retarded.
>Darwinism is the force that drives life on this planet
That's the sun you monkey. Darwinism is why we have different species.
>all of these brainlets who can't even understand biology 101
>With such an impressive history, why did communism never succeed in France?
Because they are actual liberal degenerates. 1968 was a neo-liberal revolt under the guise of western maoism.
no, darwinism is a name given to sets of theories in biology and schools of thought revolving around them often in nonscientific contexts
biochemistry and the general chaotic nature of material reality is why we have different species
The CIA gave money and weapons to the Corsican mob to keep the Marseille ports from being shut down by the commies. And the social democrats took the Marshall Plan money to look the other way when the gangsters roughed up or murdered communist dock workers trying to strike.
The CIA didn't think the mob was immediately going to start sending heroin to New York but gangsters will be gangsters. They just wanted to shut the commies down and give the Marshall plan time to work before general strikes paralyzed France again. A big shipment of flour from the US finally broke the communist hold on the labor unions of Marseille
fpbp
Communism was sort of the 20th century meme
It was the "cool thing"
Then once the USSR fell and years after, when we could have documents about how fucked up it was, people caught up.
So what comes next?
>Post social democracies and neoliberalism propped up by Western investments and intervention
Keep trying
There's a certain board pretty much dedicated to the new trend.
None of those societies would be comfy if there weren't dozens of poor countries to produce their food, natural resources, and consumer goods.
The Russian Revolution was undoubtedly a mass movement. In February, mass protest by normal people led to the overthrow of the Tsarist government. The Bolsheviks offered peace, land, and bread, and amassed significant support in the cities. Each Russian city now had a Soviet (city council) in which the Bolsheviks generally held the majority or plurality of seats.
Part of why the October Revolution was so successful was because of the wide support for the Bolsheviks among soldiers, railroad workers, and telegraph operators. They had amassed bottom-up institutional support.
Bloody French
As a counterpoint, France knows best of anyone how a revolution can make a people more liberated and a country stronger.
I live in the Netherlands. I have to wait 10 years on the list to become eligible for social housing because I wasn't born rich. That's as long as you had to wait in the Soviet Union to get a car.
Nobody except /pol/ likes /pol/
Except for times when life is really shitty, the authoritarian right has never been cool. And even in the 30s, every state with a fascist movement had about as many or more radical leftists.
The only reason the right was ever able to win hearts and minds is by using language of freedom and democracy, convincing everyday folks that fewer labor protections are actually liberating.
The more you guys talk about killing Jews and right-wing death squads, the less are people likely to agree with you.
Americanism.
This. If not for CIA pressure, both France and Italy would have become socialist states. Possibly West Germany, too
>If not for CIA pressure, both France and Italy would have become socialist states. Possibly West Germany, too
and cash. The US was basically rebuilding everybody's economy
>guillotine your king even though he was relatively benevolent and willing to make reforms
>guillotine your brothers just because they disagree with liberal opinions
>guillotine fellow revolutionaries in a fit of paranoia for not being zealous enough
>after all this let an emperor take the throne who undoes whatever token revolutionary changes you made
>he declares war on the entire world giving bongs the excuse they need to rally Europe against you and usurp you as the leading nation
>after an initial chaotic zerg rush he sends the most patriotic and loyal to freeze to death in Russia for no reason and loses the war
yeah nah
Nobody likes /leftypol/ except /leftypol/
Except for times when life is really shitty, the authoritarian left has never been cool. And even in the 30's, every state with a communist movement had about as many or more fascists.
The only reason the left was ever able to win hearts and minds is by using language of freedom and democracy, convincing everyday folks that more labor protections are actually liberating.
The more you guys talk about hanging porky and left wing execution squads, the less are people likely to agree with you.
INB4 MUH FEEELSIES MUH BELEVIES
>biochemistry does not beget darwinism
2/10 see me after class.
not in the 1968 particularly
No pasaran! :^)
See, the problem with this thought is that the authoritarian left is just a particularly edgy offshoot of the broader anticapitalist movement, which is invariably liberating to a huge amount of people, including the vast majority of people in the third world. Labor strikes in India last year involved 150 million people protesting the destruction of labor protections.
The difference between right wing and left wing mass advocacy is that the left actually brings concrete benefits to the people they fight for. This is why millions of people in Asia and Latin America support radical leftist movements. In the West, socialists have won enormous gains for workers. Even though they never established a socialist society, capitalist governments were forced to establish minimum wages and safety regulations and even respect collective bargaining rights, to prevent these movements from growing large enough to known down the capitalist pyramid. When socialist governments fail, it's never because they brought their society too far away from capitalism. It's because they turned their backs on the people who brought them to power, and thus lost popular support.
The appeal of the right is aesthetic and emotional. It's about constructing a reality that is suitable to your own moral peculiarities, without much serious concern for the material conditions of people living under this system. This is why /pol/ will go on about the high standard of living in Germany, while also celebrating the Roman Empire, despite it being powered by destitute slaves (many of them white Germans, too!) who lived a miserable existence under the heel of Rome. You guys only get votes when a lot of people are poor and unhappy, and you can convince enough of them that more hierarchy and cruelty will make their lives more comfortable. When this doesn't happen, you guys always lose steam.
because people vote on the right and the left is always divided, precisely because liberalism is not unified once everybody is liberal, once liberals lose a common enemy
No I was referrring to 1947 general strikes
For sure. For much of Europe after the war, it was "better red than dead". Their economies were in shambles.
See, the problem with this thought is that the authoritarian right is just a particularly edgy offshoot of the broader anticommunist movement, which is invariably liberating to a huge amount of people, including the vast majority of people in the third world. Elections in India over the last three years involved 171,660,230 people voting in a right wing nationalist government to protect their freedoms from socialism.
The difference between left wing and right wing mass advocacy is that the right actually brings concrete benefits to the people they fight for. This is why millions of people in Asia, Latin America, Europe, North America, India and East Asia support radical right movements. In the West, socialists have suffered setback after setback in recent decades, without ever establishing a functioning socialist society. Capitalist governments threw them a bone to make them stop bitching so they would remain docile sheep in their cave learning about postmodernism. When socialist governments fail, it's because they were economic quagmires filled with ideologues too obsessed with their feelings over what reality's input was telling them.
The appeal of the left is aesthetic and emotional. It's about constructing a reality that is suitable to your own moral peculiarities, without much serious concern for the material conditions of people living under this system. This is why /pol/ will go on about the high standard of living in Catalonia, while also celebrating the USSR, despite it being powered by destitute serfs (all of them working class, too!) who lived a miserable existence under the heel of the Politburo. You guys only get votes when a lot of people are poor and unhappy, and you can convince them that more hierarchy and cruelty will make their lives more comfortable (MUH VANGUARD). When this doesn't happen, you guys always lose steam.
what a terrible post
Where are the arguments, you fucking faggot?
This is the reason why right-wingers are seen as retards: because you don't even TRY to engage in intellectual discussion.
For fuck's sake. You're harming yourself more than the leftie you're arguing with.