How did communists build a strong base among working class people in certain countries if lower classes are generally...

In the Russia they never had broad peasant support, since the peasants were quite religious (Orthodox) and conservative. This is part of why they persecuted peasants and especially kulaks so much. The Red support base there was mostly alienated urban labor.

I was actually the complete opposite in China, where the Mao's boys won the hearts and minds of the peasants through their ideological consistency and acts of kindness toward locals. They had trouble in the industrial centers.

Also you're idiot for your assertion about material needs trumping religiosity, but that probably stems from some form of autism rather than a lack of historical knowledge

Attached: samuel hyde.jpg (215x234, 6K)

>Czechoslovakia unrest was likewise socialist
I'm not sure it was, it was the workers protesting the fact the government literally robbed them through the currency reform.

>was actually the complete opposite in China, where the Mao's boys won the hearts and minds of the peasants through their ideological consistency and acts of kindness toward locals
>>>/leftypol/

No Russian leader killed as many workers and peasants as Stalin.

Dude I've unironically advocated for the violent persecution of communists in front of my friends and coworkers.

I'm just saying Mao did a good job of winning over genuine rural support (ie not out of fear). It probably helped him that the alternatives were at various times the extremely corrupt KMT or the fucking Japanese. Both of these groups made the commies look like saints. Things only got really nasty once the communists had a tight grip on power

the unrest in those countries was completely minor in comparison to even the student protests in france in 1968 or the german revolution. The demonstrations never really exceeded more than several ten thousand people out of countries with millions in population.

Well, in comparison to Chiang and the Japs at least.

but the base of working agricultural laborers still supported them and the left SR's who they voted into the soviets. They were more concerned with ending the war and attaining land redistribution than sticking with idiotic religious beliefs.

Because communists quickly put them down, they weren't as comically incompetent as westerners when dealing with unrest.

>idiotic religious beliefs

Sure are keeping your bias under wraps.

Attached: Good Night Frens.jpg (720x720, 47K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891–92

>advocate the violent prosecution of communists in front of coworkers like some mccarthyite nazi
What the fuck was his problem?

You get the rope, commie

>less than a million
Thanks for proving me right I guess?

>starving and being conscripted into a war
>bayonette poking at your back as you are being forced to run into machine gun fire

i'm sure god will help us out of this through his scion on earth, the great czar nicholai ii.
>nobody at the time said

They had about 6 million killed and wounded because of WW1, which the Czar got them involved with. Ukraine had about 500k casualties as a result of the war. His adherents then started the Russian civil war which caused another several million casualties.

Germans killed those though, not the tsar.

>implying the Czar didn't mobilize the Russian army to prepare an invasion of A-H before the war itself started

the Romanovs were hardly religious figureheads for your average peasant.

You must understand there's a difference between "yeah fuck that tsar guy I guess, I want my son back from the front" and "I, an Orthodox Christian in a rural community where religious centers are a core element of social life, support the bolsheviks, who advocate for the abolition of my religion and will probably shoot our local priest". The communists were hardly the only people calling for the abolition of the tsardom and an end to the war, especially before civil war broke out.

And the military was another matter entirely.

>a Krautaboo apologist is also a Bolshevik apologist
Shocking

>nobody at the time said
No shit, the JudeoBolsheviks had already killed the Tsar, why would a Russian expect God to send poor dead Nicky round to rescue them from the NKVD?

because they promised to destroy higher class and kept this promise

Attached: 1469432597174.jpg (1702x1098, 1.11M)

Quite the contrary. Democratic Germany is far more interested in the disruption than in the preservation of Austria-Hungary. A disrupted Austria-Hungary would mean a gain to Germany of an educated population of twelve million and a capital city of the first rank, Vienna. Italy would achieve national completion, and would cease to play the role of the incalculable factor that she always has been in the Triple Alliance. An independent Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, and a Balkan Federation including a Rumania of ten million inhabitants on the Russian frontier, would be a mighty bulwark against Czarism. And most important of all, a democratic Germany with a population of 75,000,000 Germans could easily, without the Hohenzollerns and the ruling Junkers, come to an agreement with France and England and could isolate Czarism and condemn its foreign and internal policies to complete impotence. A policy directed towards this goal would indeed be a policy of liberation for the people of Russia as well as of Austria-Hungary. But such a policy requires an essential preliminary condition, namely, that the German people, instead of entrusting the Hohenzollerns with the liberation of other nations, should set about liberating themselves from the Hohenzollerns.

-Trotsky

Tsar was a German.

>having some German ancestry makes you a German
>even though you descend from Peter I., you speak Russian natively and you're Russian Orthodox Christian

>abolition of gender roles, etc. without the rhetoric of modern identity politics.
WRONG

Krauts btfo

>having some x ancestry makes you a x
Said literally every white person ever.

American niggers have Anglo ancestry guess that makes them Anglos then.

So we agree.

That niggers are Anglos?

Did the French students throw molotov cocktails on NATO tanks? You made a retarded comparison

Working classes generally speaking are not more religious or conservative the the other classes, broadly speaking. However, if you juxtapose urban upper class liberals - who made up perhaps 5 to 10% of the population of Western Europe in early 20th century and working class, which made up perhaps 40-60% of the population, it is probably not suprising to see more working class people in Churches and community halls.

Your argument makes it seems as if Russian peasants were some heart of the conservative movement, which they were not. The peasants voted mostly for Socialist Revolutionary party, that was more agrarian socialism focused, whereas Bolsheviks appealed to urban electorate. While SRs weren't as anticlerical as Bolsheviks, the peasants largely still voted for atheistic left wing movements.

Attached: Russian_Constituent_Assembly_Election_1917.png (702x667, 51K)

In the case of Bolsheviks or the CPC, they infiltrated the fuck out of the military. Bolshevik rule largely came from defected military units and leaders, which were later betrayed at Kronstadt.

In general communists were better at organization while their opponents were a mess, which made them more effective and they were sometimes seen as the lesser of two evils because of that, if that idea has any merit is something else.
The success of communist movements imho was usually because of their cohesiveness.

>The success of communist movements imho was usually because of their cohesiveness
I understand your point in the broad sense, but when looking at other communist movements that failed (such as the Bavaria uprising, Paris Commune, Thailand, etc.) it's not entirely true.

well I'm talking about those that WERE successful, not sure how cohesive the others were but one thing is for sure is the relativity of it all. If the opposition they faced was less cohesive than the communists themselves the communist could find a lot of success.
that and militarism, the successful communists were always militarist.

>well I'm talking about those that WERE successful
That is called cherry picking.

>If the opposition they faced was less cohesive than the communists themselves the communist could find a lot of success
Germany was a fucking mess in 1918 and France was an even bigger mess in 1871. This only really counters the Thailand example.

>the successful communists were always militarist
And many unsuccessful ones were as well.

I'm not arguing for all communist movements being cohesive and successful, I'm merely bringing up ideas on why the ones that were successful succeeded. Germany quickly united against the communists IIRC and the paris commune didn't have the time to gather steam and was confined to an urban area, while communists often found support from the countryside due to promises of land reform.