Most vulnerable Western European states to communism?

[Sam R.]

1) The PCF were what are now called Tankies: they were a complex network of traditional worker's movements, with a heavy state centred fixation, and an affinity for Moscow's political line. This is a common place sectarian joke that they were not true communists.
2) The PCF were a powerful agent bound up with the day to day operation of French capitalism, not an organisation designed to overthrow the French State or capitalism in France. This is the specific critique of the PCF: they were neither capable of overthrowing the French State for a Moscow style society, or or implementing communism, as they were designed to be a leashed opposition inside France and incapable of revolutionary action.
3) The PCF were positioned by their bureaucracy, their fixation on the existing French State, and by their factory centred "led" and "controlled" workplaces to work against the PCF seizing power, and to halt, dismantle or stymie attempts at communism. The PCF were positioned to do this whether they liked it or not: it was implicit in how their organisation worked.
4) The PCF, as a party nominally supporting a Moscow style society (though as noted above: actually incapable of achieving that) would (and did) deliberately stymie attempts to achieve a society based around workers control leading to the dismantling of the wage relation. The PCF were a Communist party and therefore opposed communism. (This is separate from point 1: the PCF's actual conduct was to prevent the extensification of solidarity, or the fusion of cross work-site networks, and to break down participation in deep or radical demands.)

The PCF benefited from the existing French society and sought to maintain it.
The PCF were ordered to do so by Moscow.
The PCF wished (formally) to implement a Moscow style society, this is not communism.
The PCF lacked the actual wish, or the capacity, to implement a Moscow style society: they were not only anti-communist but anti-Communist.
The PCF opposed communism during 1968 by opposing greater solidarity, radical demands, or "roping in" workplaces into the struggle.

So to get a Communist or communist France out of 1968 you need a better, different, or defeated PCF.

For an example of a Communist Party which (in part) wanted communism in 1968 see the Czech republic. Had the PCF been responsible, they would have demanded tanks from Moscow.

yours,
Sam R.

 

[hwyl]

This however, is.

Ultimately, I believe the only working two-part partition of Europe follows the lines of the Great Schism. Its a cultural split that endured a thousand years, after all. Compared to that, the East-West divide of the 2nd half of the the 20th century is just a momentary deviation.

I suppose you are right in the sense of those early 20th century events being more a concequence of Finland being inherently Western than any particular cause of it being such, they were way too late for that. Those things usually followed in Western Europe (though not everywhere, Spain and Portugal had a different path for example). And yeah, that is a great fault line indeed: the Orthodox Europe has been often quite different indeed - though is inter-war Hungary so radically different from inter-war Romania for example?

 

[hwyl]

The PCF wished (formally) to implement a Moscow style society, this is not communism.

We have in Finland a well known Left Alliance MP who defines herself as a communist. And when endlessly asked about it, always kindly explains that not that unpleasant kind of a communist, not Soviet, not Maoist, not Khmer Rouge or whatever, but some sort of an ideal communist that basically has never historically existed apart from various short lived and insignificant utopian societies or movements in various places. It's like proudly calling yourself a Catholic and then patiently explaining that you don't believe in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or the sacraments or much any of that stuff...

 

[Von Tyrconnell]

Considering the left wing nature of Irish Republicanism I would argue Ireland should be listed. However to me the only POD era I can think of would have been a world where Irish independence is delayed resulting in outright communist Ireland by 1930. Could be wrong on this just my opinion but there were several Irish Soviets post 1916.

Irish republicanism wasn't particularly left-wing until the sixties, there was a faction within the IRA that supported a move towards socialist politics during the late twenties and early thirties, but they ultimately lost favour with the IRA leadership as a result of broader Irish society's intense hostility to communism (the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War alone caused a Red Scare in Ireland), and the IRA would later drift to the far-right politically in the forties and fifties.

It's unlikely a world where Irish independence is delayed would see Irish communists win a power struggle within the republican movement compared to the mainstream conservatives or the far-right who would gain prominence as the Nazis (presuming butterflies doesn't change Hitler's rise to power) became a potential force for liberation from British rule.

I think the only chance of a communist Ireland is a world where the Troubles are worse and spill over into the south, with the Soviets possibly backing the IRA.

 

[lukedalton]

Italy, let the pope and the CIA not meddle with the first post war elections.

It was not that close victory and frankly economic support was more important

 

[Fehérvári]

is inter-war Hungary so radically different from inter-war Romania for example?

In Transylvania, folkloral customs blended, however practices related to faith still created a notable distinction. The difference between the areas of post-war Hungary and the Romanian Old Kingdom were even more visible.

Very sudden and radical difference, aside from religion, wasn't exactly present, but the same goes for pretty much every other two countries bordering each other. The change in customs, mentality and whatnot is always gradual, so an exact border would be hard to define. The only easily definable line we can use is based on religion and its associated cultural 'baggage'.

 

[hwyl]

In Transylvania, folkloral customs blended, however practices related to faith still created a notable distinction. The difference between the areas of post-war Hungary and the Romanian Old Kingdom were even more visible.

Very sudden and radical difference, aside from religion, wasn't exactly present, but the same goes for pretty much every other two countries bordering each other. The change in customs, mentality and whatnot is always gradual, so an exact border would be hard to define. The only easily definable line we can use is based on religion and its associated cultural 'baggage'.

Good answer. But with such a blunt instrument the important nuances tend to disappear... As a Finno-Ugric I have always had a certain sympathy for Hungary. I guess the Transylvanian question was always destined to be decided unfairly whichever the direction. Though I gather Hungarian nationalists have these days disawoved any linguistic relationship to us humble Northern cousins thrice removed for was it Sumerians?

 

[Fehérvári]

Good answer.

Thanks.

But with such a blunt instrument the important nuances tend to disappear...

Oversimplifications tend to do that. Reducing Europe to a binaric East-West division is an extreme example of that.

As a Finno-Ugric I have always had a certain sympathy for Hungary.

Not that many people do (partially deservedly), so it is something most appreciated.

I guess the Transylvanian question was always destined to be decided unfairly whichever the direction.

I don't necessarily think that. For example, the potential was probably there for Transylvania to become the "Switzerland of the East". I do have my biases though, since I most certainly would have preferred all of Transylvania remaining part of Hungary (with considerable autonomy and multiple official languages though).

Though I gather Hungarian nationalists have these days disawoved any linguistic relationship to us humble Northern cousins thrice removed for was it Sumerians?

Sumerians, Parthians, Huns, Turks, "Indians", the people of Sirius and of Mu, etc. It's insane what they can come up with, honestly. Fortunately, the Academia strongly resisted giving ear to any such claims, although the relatively recent government takeover might eventually change this.

But we're getting off-topic.

 

[Tolkiene]

Have Schumacher win the 1949 federal elections. He was a democratic-socialist who wanted to see a socialist, democratic, neutral and unified Germany. And if he accepts the 1952 Stalin Note, the Reunification of Germany would happen almost 40 years earlier and the SPD, having to form coalitions with the Communists, would keep it's commitment to Socialism.

Kurt Schumacher really hated the Communists. He literally called them fascists painted red and accused them of class betrayal. In his view they'd undermined the Weimar Republic and thus enabled the Nazi takeover. He viewed communist activities in Italy, Hungary and the Balkans in the inter-war years in the same light.

Post-war he regarded the KPD as nothing more than Soviet minions, and rejected any form of cooperation with Communists or diplomatic talks with East Germany. When the SPD in the Soviet occupation zone was forced to fuse with the KPD, he advocated strict separation from them. His foreign policy was a bit inconsistent since on the one hand he was a passionate enemy of the Soviet Union and 'real existing socialism', but on the other also criticised integration into Western Europe because he believed it would stand in the way of German reunification.

Being critical of Adenauer's western policy and the social market economy is not the same as being sympathetic to the Soviets. And the socialist economic policies advocated by the SPD at the time did not go beyond what Labour was implementing in Britain.

 

[Cryptic]

Like the title says, what were the Western European states that most vulnerable to communism and how can we make them Communist?

I would go for Italy with a ripe mix of industrialization and at the time, considerable pre industrial poverty.

In addition to the strength found in formal parties, a residual number of armed communist militants were active in the years following WWII.

Their activities included revenge killings of right wing militants, kidnapping for ransom, and occasional social cleansing type murders of "class enemies".

Later in the Cold War, Naples in particular was said to have a very active communist party and that nothing occurring in the harbor regarding US fleet movements nor details regarding their provisions and repairs stayed secret from the Soviets.

 

[hwyl]

Kurt Schumacher really hated the Communists. He literally called them fascists painted red and accused them of class betrayal. In his view they'd undermined the Weimar Republic and thus enabled the Nazi takeover. He viewed communist activities in Italy, Hungary and the Balkans in the inter-war years in the same light.

Yeah, that's my understanding too, a fierce anti-communist. No great wonder actually, the Finnish post-war Social Democrats were also extremely hostile towards the Communists - largely for the simple reason that they would have been among the first to be liquidated in any take-over. "Social fascists".

 

[Sam R.]

It’s also arguable in parties that were less Italian that the communist opposition to the Communists tended to be in the Social Democrats.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

We have in Finland a well known Left Alliance MP who defines herself as a communist. And when endlessly asked about it, always kindly explains that not that unpleasant kind of a communist, not Soviet, not Maoist, not Khmer Rouge or whatever, but some sort of an ideal communist that basically has never historically existed apart from various short lived and insignificant utopian societies or movements in various places. It's like proudly calling yourself a Catholic and then patiently explaining that you don't believe in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or the sacraments or much any of that stuff...

This is ridiculous. You can be a Communist without being a Marxist-Leninist or one of it's offshoots. "Communism" as an ideology predates Lenin.

Yeah, that's my understanding too, a fierce anti-communist. No great wonder actually, the Finnish post-war Social Democrats were also extremely hostile towards the Communists - largely for the simple reason that they would have been among the first to be liquidated in any take-over. "Social fascists".

To be entirely fair, I'm pretty sure the whole "social fascist" thing and the broader split between the reformist and revolutionary wings of the socialist movement was really finalized when the German SPD sent in right wing death squads who for all intents and purposes were pretty much Proto Nazis to massacre revolutionaries.

 

[brooklyn99]

To be entirely fair, I'm pretty sure the whole "social fascist" thing and the broader split between the reformist and revolutionary wings of the socialist movement was really finalized when the German SPD sent in right wing death squads who for all intents and purposes were pretty much Proto Nazis to massacre revolutionaries.

You mean that time the Spartacists tried to pull an October Revolution of their own and overthrow the government only to got their asses kicked, which Marxists since then like to interpret as baby eating social-democrats being meanies?

 

[hwyl]

This is ridiculous. You can be a Communist without being a Marxist-Leninist or one of it's offshoots. "Communism" as an ideology predates Lenin.

Yeah, obviously you can, you just need to have a rather lengthy explanation about it - as in this empirical world most everyone else thinks about communism as, basically, well, Marxism-Leninism. I'm not a very devout Evangelical-Lutheran myself, but I think I could call myself catholic if memory serves. I would just need to explain quite a bit.

 

[hwyl]

To be entirely fair, I'm pretty sure the whole "social fascist" thing and the broader split between the reformist and revolutionary wings of the socialist movement was really finalized when the German SPD sent in right wing death squads who for all intents and purposes were pretty much Proto Nazis to massacre revolutionaries.

Nopes, I think that was finalized by Stalin. Very conclusively.

 

[DrakonFin]

To be entirely fair, I'm pretty sure the whole "social fascist" thing and the broader split between the reformist and revolutionary wings of the socialist movement was really finalized when the German SPD sent in right wing death squads who for all intents and purposes were pretty much Proto Nazis to massacre revolutionaries.

Finland had its own experience of revolutionary leftism during our civil war of 1918, in which the revolutionary wing of the Finnish Social Democratic Party allied with Lenin's Bolsheviks to take over the country, and dragged the rest of the Finnish left with it into a bloody defeat. The revolutionary leaders then buggered off to Soviet Russia, while the moderate part of the SDP was left to rebuild the ruins of Finnish left wing. In the interwar, the moderate, anti-Soviet SDP was central in healing the wounds of the civil war and building a functional society and republican system with other middle groups. Come the Winter War, this consensus helped Finland to retain its independence, when the siren calls of the Finnish Communists, hiding behind Stalin's back, were by and large rejected by the Finnish leftists. After WWII, it was rather logical for the moderate majority of the Finnish SDP to again ally with the bourgeois political middle groups to try and fend off Soviet influence and the Moscow-allied Finnish Communists. There were even bona fide Communists in Finland who saw the danger the USSR represented to Finland and worked against Moscow's designs after WWII.

Each countries have their own experiences, is what I am saying, and in Finland it is IMO easy to see that practically speaking the far left was on the side of foreign domination while the moderate left was a force for democracy and independence. Finnish Communists might call Social Democrats with the derogatory term "Noske", but to the moderate left in Finland, this reference to the German experience was not as relevant as what happened in Finland itself.

 

[hwyl]

Each countries have their own experiences, is what I am saying, and in Finland it is IMO easy to see that practically speaking the far left was on the side of foreign domination while the moderate left was a force for democracy and independence. Finnish Communists might call Social Democrats with the derogatory term "Noske", but to the moderate left in Finland, this reference to the German experience was not as relevant as what happened in Finland itself.

I think the SPD handled things badly in 1919 but what could you expect in the Wilhelmine context when they had been kept totally out of power and the power structures being to a large part absurdly archaic? I still can barely fathom the extraordinary cowardice of Ludendorff and Hindenburg to abandon the war about in one afternoon without taking any bloody responsibility for it. The SPD was handed a totally poisoned chalice.

 

[Sam R.]

Which is why my explanation of the actual situation in French communism and the role the actual PCF played was long, detailed, went to the ideals and organisational form of the PCF, the role the PCF played in French society, and how it actually related to workers communist or not.

It’s almost as if social history is a series of detailed explanations.

 

[durante]

We have in Finland a well known Left Alliance MP who defines herself as a communist. And when endlessly asked about it, always kindly explains that not that unpleasant kind of a communist, not Soviet, not Maoist, not Khmer Rouge or whatever, but some sort of an ideal communist that basically has never historically existed apart from various short lived and insignificant utopian societies or movements in various places. It's like proudly calling yourself a Catholic and then patiently explaining that you don't believe in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or the sacraments or much any of that stuff...

Actually, calling Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, or Khmer Rouge "communist" is like calling yourself a Catholic but saying you dont believe in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or the sacraments or that stuff etc.

Or perhaps as another analogy, your MP could be saying she is Jewish but doesn't support Israel?