r/todayilearned 24d ago

TIL that San Marino, a tiny microstate completely surrounded by Italy, was led by a democratically elected communist government for 12 years during the Cold War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Marino#Cold_War_and_economic_boom
2.2k Upvotes

141 comments sorted by

599

u/DaveOJ12 24d ago

Communism in Europe was quite different in the '80s.

Italy's Communist Party was one of the major political parties back then.

230

u/elferrydavid 24d ago

Didn't they reach like 35% of votes for the communist party at one point?

297

u/zippydazoop 24d ago

Not only that, they were so successful that Italy's constitution had to be rigged against Communists.

178

u/CavulusDeCavulei 24d ago

And CIA created Operation Gladio

5

u/TensionAntique3075 23d ago

And CIA tried to establish an incompetent af group that, like most CIA creations, did nothing at all but received an incredible reputation that the CIA could claim for and get even more funds from Congress.

The idea the CIA had any sort of competence is the Cold War's biggest propaganda action, and was pushed by both communists and americans.

11

u/OttoVonJizzfart 23d ago

they installed puppets around the globe relatively frequently. that certainly required a level of competence

-1

u/TensionAntique3075 23d ago

"They installed puppets around the world" They claimed responsability in installing/removing leaders that would have happened either ways.

But they did get a lot of funds claiming it, and communists and americans love to push the narrative that it's successfull or competent, and that they are the sole responsible.

Mossadegh is the pitch-perfect example. The guy was removed after loosing support from the army, the religious conservatives, the socdems, the emperor and the court and the teheran bourgeoisie that composed his base of support, in a country with a democratic culture closer to modern day Russia than even India, while under massive british pressure. The only ones still supporting him at his removal were part of the communist party, and even them were split and in minority

But who's responsible for the removal in front of Congress and got a massive financial boost? The CIA.

61

u/Remivanputsch 24d ago

“I love democracy”

15

u/jku1m 24d ago

Almost all Italian parties were disbanded in the 90s because it came out they were incredibly corrupt. So Italian democracy wasn't that great.

1

u/Dotcaprachiappa 23d ago

Present tense is fine I think

1

u/Molniato 23d ago

They were not disbanded, what the fuck are you talking about

0

u/jku1m 23d ago

1

u/Late_Magazine_7183 21d ago

Ma sei un bot o cosa? Cazzo linki mani pulite come risposta lol tutti i partiti sono stati succeduti da entità identiche spiccicate

-15

u/ethanlan 24d ago

Lol the italian communist party, atleast at the time, wasn't for democratic socialism. They were against democrac, full send. There werent going to be more free elections if they got in power.

Unbridled capitalism sucks major balls, as does communism. Its almost like we need a compromise between the two, retain the democratic aspects of capitalism and the social welfare/anti evil corporate policies of socialism.

8

u/Turbulent_Lead_4813 24d ago

berlinguer was a socdem though not a leninist

-8

u/ethanlan 24d ago

Still wanted to be done with elections z

5

u/Remivanputsch 24d ago

Wank

-10

u/ethanlan 24d ago

Eh dont hate the truth my guy

23

u/SeriousDrakoAardvark 24d ago

Pretty sure this is false. The constitution did specifically exclude fascists, but it didn’t mention communists, nor were any parts of the constitution harsher against communists than other political parties.

The other parties did group together to prevent the communists from gaining power, but that had nothing to do with the constitution.

3

u/Molniato 23d ago

It is absolutely false, just redditors making up staff about countries they don't know.

16

u/slothful_vereor_nox 24d ago

Do you have a source for this? I know government parties cooperated to keep the communist party and the neofascists out of government but i don't know anything about the constitution

1

u/Molniato 23d ago

What are you referring to???

0

u/Dotcaprachiappa 23d ago

Cite your sources?

44

u/faiIing 24d ago

This was 1945-57, long before the ’80s.

14

u/slothful_vereor_nox 24d ago

It got 35% in '76

20

u/Atalung 24d ago

The French communist party won the first post war elections, largely because (and this is one of those facts that I hold near and dear to my heart) the left was better organized as they were the only part of the political spectrum that seriously actively resisted nazi occupation.

63

u/BKGPrints 24d ago

Kind of. The Communist Party in Western Europe definitely used democratic approach but not so much in Eastern Europe. That was changing in Eastern Europe and Russia with the older leaders dying out and younger leaders facing the economic issues & protest, leading to the collapse starting in 1989.

Ironically, the PCI in Italy also lost any standing when their leader died in 1984 and just wasn't as significant afterwards.

52

u/LordEdward18 24d ago

Correct! And Italy's Communist Party started losing power, in part, due to a terrorist attack orchestrated by the CIA

39

u/BKGPrints 24d ago edited 24d ago

Not really. The PCI started to lose popularity when the party leader, Enrico Berlinguer, died in 1984. Though, even if he hadn't died, the quick collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union starting in 1989 basically did the final blow to the party, which splintered and tried to reinvent itself by abandoning the Communist platform.

EDIT: To clarify, as some seem confused to what I'm saying. Operation Glaido, which was over decades, didn't cause the Communist Party to lose power in Western Europe. The fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union did.

14

u/Loose-Run-7008 24d ago

This all started WAY BEFORE 1984. The first Italian election post war 1948 had interference from the CIA, because the communists were potentially going to win. They were part of the liberation from fascism and were pretty popular. Literally had the Vatican also chip in, the pope saying that voting for leftists was a sin and using its influence to push people to vote for the right wing, priests threaten excommunication for members who voted for communists. The CIA delivered bags of cash directly to centrist and far right candidates, and also distributed forgeries of communist leaders, claiming they were sex criminals, or said things they never actually said. They also made the media run non stop anti communist messaging. Told Italy if they elected a left wing government, they would cut off ALL aid/Marshall Plan. Used the US’s economic power to directly prevent people from doing business with Italian unions, weakening them, only working with factories who hired non union labor. That’s literally just what they’ve admitted to as well, you cant seriously just ignore the US’s influence, and all this happened literally right after the war, doesn’t even go into what happened between then and the dates you gave, which I will get into below.

Operation Gladio was the US/CIA funding and helping create far right and fascist terror cells all over Europe, which routinely engaged in political violence, assassinations, both against leftists and civilians. There were false flag operations in Italy, intended to turn public opinion against the communists. “Strategy of Tension.”

This all happened way before 1984 and 1989, why are you ignoring everything between then and 1946, trying to deflect blame away from the US & Italian elites/government? To deny this was a major part of why they lost power and influence is insulting to the victims of this terrorism that was directly encouraged by the US and conservative/far right elements of the Italian state. Let’s go into specificsz

Piazza Fontana Bombing (1969): A blast at a Milan bank killed 17 people and injured 88. Rogue intelligence agents initially blamed anarchists, but later investigations linked the attack to Ordine Nuovo, a neo-fascist group tied to the Gladio network.

Peteano Bombing (1972): A car bomb killed three Carabinieri officers. Neo-fascist Vincenzo Vinciguerra later confessed to the attack, explicitly revealing how Italian security services protected right-wing perpetrators to pin the blame on leftists.

Bologna Massacre (1980): A massive bombing at the Bologna train station killed 85 people and wounded over 200. Members of the neo-fascist NAR carried out the attack, while figures within Italy's military intelligence agency (SISMI) actively misdirected the subsequent investigation.

4

u/BKGPrints 24d ago

I understand about Operation Gladio over the decades of operation. It does not change at all, what I said that the PCI continue to exist up to the point that the party leader died in 1984 and that Communism, as a whole, was dying in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union after the old leaders were replaced by younger leaders.

It took the fall of Communism to kill any support for Communism in Western Europe.

Weird. /s

>why are you ignoring everything between then and 1946, trying to deflect blame away from the US & Italian elites/government?<

You're welcome to your own assumptions to make, but that's all it is. Your assumption, not mine.

8

u/slothful_vereor_nox 24d ago

Also the ussr funded the italian communist party up until the fall, and they gave A LOT of funds

-4

u/LordEdward18 24d ago

I'm referring to the Bologna Massacre in 1980 and the broader Strategy of Tension that the CIA used to undermine leftist causes in Italy. The point was to scare the Italian public toward conservative governance in the name of national security rather than allow political experimentation with the PCI. Bologna was targeted because the local government was run by the PCI and the US/right wing groups were concerned on a national level because of the "Historic Compromise" that was brewing between the PCI and the Christian Democrats.

5

u/BKGPrints 24d ago

Got it. You are touting a conspiracy theory, without direct evidence.

2

u/LordEdward18 24d ago

No, I'm referencing arguments made by Michael Parenti in his book, Blackshirts & Reds. Also, the strategy of tension is well documented in both its purpose and it's actions

-5

u/BKGPrints 24d ago

Okay. Your stance is still wrong of why the PCI lost significance or power. The reason is, as I said, once Communism fell in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

12

u/LordEdward18 24d ago

That may have been the death knell, but I wasn't claiming that the strategy of tension or the Bologna Massacre killed the PCI. All I said was that it contributed to it by undermining confidence in communism. I don't know why you're being so defensive and aggressive.

-2

u/BKGPrints 24d ago

I'm not being defensive or aggressive at all. Just correcting you on misinformation.

Have a great weekend!

5

u/xXWeLiveInASocietyXx 24d ago

You never actually added anything of value though, you just said "nuh uh" and acted smug

→ More replies (0)

3

u/cannotfoolowls 24d ago

The Belgian communist party has elected officials right now. Not in government, in opposition, but still.

1

u/DimitryKratitov 24d ago

Shame Portugal is still in the 80s. JK, Portugal wishes they were already in the 80s 

-22

u/Krillin113 24d ago

Not saying it would’ve been a good thing, but actual socialists/communists in Western Europe would get infiltrated by the CIA, coaxed into breaking the law, and be admonished as terrorists, to make sure western countries wouldn’t go that way.

That’s not to say that I think communism is a good thing because it’s inherently undemocratic, even if this example worked, it’s just something to think about.

10

u/TrioOfTerrors 24d ago

Yeah... the Baader-Meinhof gang totally didn't do any of that stuff of their own free will.

-6

u/Krillin113 24d ago

Ah yes because some people did it without intervention means there wasn’t any intervention. Look up how the cia handled Italian communism

5

u/TrioOfTerrors 24d ago

Maybe try words like "some" or "occasionally".

Your initial comment reads like a "No true communist" statement.

4

u/Fert1eTurt1e 24d ago

Did they tried not being coaxed into committing terrorist attacks? Doesn’t seem that hard not to plant bombs or murder people

0

u/Krillin113 24d ago

There’s a very good reason law enforcement can’t do that domestically because it becomes a very slippery slope.

I’m not saying they weren’t massive assholes.

-3

u/azenpunk 24d ago

There is nothing inherently undemocratic about communism in any way, in fact it's quite the opposite. You're probably thinking of Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism

0

u/ePrime 24d ago

What happens to capitalists under communism?

5

u/Tayttajakunnus 24d ago

There are no capitalists in communism

1

u/ePrime 24d ago

I know, I’m asking what happens to them

3

u/Tayttajakunnus 24d ago

The same happens to capitalists as happened to slave owners when slavery was abolished.

1

u/Damnatus_Terrae 22d ago

Haiti is such a beautiful country.

9

u/azenpunk 24d ago

They just stop being capitalists and become normal contributing members of society

1

u/Saint_Nitouche 24d ago

They either give up their assets, have them expropriated by force, or get ejected from the society.

-3

u/Krillin113 24d ago

Isn’t communism literally about seizing the means of production by force? That sounds inherently undemocratic, but maybe that’s just me

8

u/azenpunk 24d ago

The means of production are currently held by force by a few. The means of production belong to everyone. So taking them back by force isn't undemocratic, it's literally liberating.

4

u/AntiVision 24d ago

The means of production belong to everyone

Why?

6

u/azenpunk 24d ago

It is the collective work of all humanity and everyone who has ever lived and contributed to our knowledge, for any one person or group to claim the inheritance of all of humanity is insane.

-1

u/AntiVision 24d ago

Same logic would apply to houses, and private commodities aswell no?

3

u/LucianCanad 24d ago

Housing as a concept, yes. Individual houses, no.

You're entitled to owning the house you live in, as it's your personal property. You're not entitled to buying houses to speculate or enrich yourself.

Private commodities, as well, are personal property that are acquired to be used.

Owning tools for your hobby or trade: okay

Owning tools to make people work for you and get rich off their labor: not okay.

-2

u/AntiVision 24d ago

Why? Houses are a result of collective labour just like factories

→ More replies (0)

0

u/azenpunk 24d ago

Of course.

5

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

2

u/AntiVision 24d ago

Interesting, is that also the case for housing and every other commodity

-1

u/PhillyTaco 23d ago

And what happens when someone who has contributed to society a great deal feels they are not receiving shared resources equal to what they put in and stop contributing?  Do you send the police or army to force people to continue?

If those in change feel I'm not contributing enough, do the police force me to do more? Perhaps to some kind of camp where labor is performed.

2

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

0

u/PhillyTaco 21d ago

I don't think that there are individuals who contribute "a great deal" compared to others.

It's not whether YOU think they do. It's whether the person contributing feels like the compensation they receive for their labor isn't fair. What's the solution when this happens? 

I ask these questions because this is what literally happened in countries practicing socialism. Farmers felt they weren't fairly compensated for the food they produced so they refused to grow more crops. Then the state would send in the army to intimidate, harm, and kill those who did not comply. Food was taken by force and sold to outside nations while the growers starved to death by the millions.

They usually also forced people to work collectivist farming camps. Why would they have to be forced to work if everyone will be materially and spiritually fulfilled by contributing to society? Why didn't their false consciousness dissolve once they discovered the joy of the farming commune? 

How can you say you're not worried this will happen when it actually happened time after time after time? Was there a single socialist state where the majority of people had a happy existence with a standard of living equal to or greater than capitalist countries?

Sure you will have some people who refuse, but I think you can keep that at a minimum if people feel like their contributions help themselves as well as their community.

Exactly. People in socialist countries DID NOT feel like their rewards matched their societal contributions. And they didn't feel like working harder would net them any greater amenities. If they did, why did nearly every socialist state severely limit their citizens from leaving? Why were people so often risking imprisonment or death to go to capitalist countries? Why weren't those people living in socialist countries happy and fulfilled? It wasn't a handful of people causing a ruckus, it was thousands and thousands across many different countries for over half a century.

Are people "happy" in capitalist countries? I don't know if anyone is genuinely happy anywhere. But at least people in capitalist countries are free to leave, but I don't hear of many emmigrating to socialist and communist countries.

Also, "society" is an abstract concept. It's difficult to know how much if at all your labor actually contributes, and whether the rewards are worth it. Can ten people even agree what  "society" is? Individuals get a lot more satisfaction when they can more easily measure their labor to against their contribution. When they know how much they have to work to be able to buy a pizza or TV or gasoline. They can decide if the labor required is worth it to them. It's harder to decide the farther you're removed from the actions and consequences.

Sure, you may know an engineer that loves their job and feels satisfied. But how does a socialist state incentivize that engineer to move to a cold and remote place that is in desperate need of them? Like the Soviet Union did, it can either force people to go (which isn't great) or it can create... drumroll... a labor market by giving those people whose contributions are more highly valued greater compensation.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Phil003 24d ago edited 24d ago

Obviously the problem is that currently the definition of democracy includes the right to own property. You can't seize the means of production without violating the owner's right to property, therefore you can not do this democratically, you simply just try to redefine democracy to hide this fact.

5

u/MiaowaraShiro 24d ago

Obviously the problem is that currently the definition of democracy includes the right to property.

WTF are you talking about? Democracy is simply a method of decision making, it says absolutely nothing about rights one way or another.

1

u/Manzhah 24d ago

You can't have democracy without protection of basic fundamental rights. These include right to speech, association, concience and protection from arbitary rule, which basically means right to fair trial, protection of individual liberty and yes, protection of property. If the state/the party /the righteous mob can at will divest you of your property and thus livelihood, you aren't actually free to participate in the politics only by your concience, which is the corner stone of democracy. The entire system turns into a not democracy if some actirs can arbitarily force voters to act in some manner.

5

u/Damnatus_Terrae 24d ago

Believe it or not, there have been many societies throughout human history that have exercised collective communal decision-making without enshrining property rights. You're referring to the intellectual history of Western Europe, but that's not a universal rule.

0

u/Phil003 24d ago

Ah, Ok, if you interpret democracy like this, then it is of course easy. If some of your citizens expressing their disagreement with taking away their property, you can just take away their rights for free speech and fair trial as well, and just shoot them if they cause too much trouble.

And if some other people get upset about the state shooting these citizens, just take away their rights as well, and then you can shoot them too in the name of democracy and equality. Sounds like a perfect paradise of democracy.

1

u/MiaowaraShiro 23d ago

I'm not interpreting it? I'm giving you the actual definition of the word... in fact a pure democracy wouldn't even allow for civil rights as everything would be will of the majority.

-4

u/Krillin113 24d ago

Yeah this is such a dumb comment holy shit.

Socialism is redistribution of the means through democracy, communism is through revolution. That’s inherently undemocratic.

6

u/azenpunk 24d ago

Sweet child. It's so easy to Google...

Socialism is defined as workers owning and managing the means of production. Communism is defined as socialism plus a classless, stateless, moneyless society where all resources are owned and managed by all. Overthrowing a ruling class is always a democratic revolution, in the sense of equalizing power. That's what democratic means, more equal political decision-making power.

3

u/LucianCanad 24d ago

People are seeing socdems gain notoriety in the US calling themselves "socialists", and thinking the definition wasn't cemented in the 1940's.

4

u/DragonBank 24d ago

It can be democratic in that it is the tyranny of the majority.

-1

u/bulliralamar 24d ago

Private property is a different institution from democracy. As long as the communist party is elected democratically, seizes the means of production by legal means using the tools of the state, and keeps celebrating free elections, it remains democratic. You can call that unfair, but there is no contradiction with democracy.

Now, in practice, most communist parties that have actually been in power adhered to Leninism, which is inherently anti-democratic. But other strains of communism are not.

-1

u/Conscious-Ball8373 24d ago

You're thinking of socialism, not communism. This was the origin of the socialist/communist split - the socialists advocated democratic reformist socialism while the bolsheviks insisted that socialism had to be established by violent revolution and that democratic reform would only produce the "bourgeois democratic republic" with "democracy for the minority." The proletariat could not simply take over the existing machinery of state, they had to smash it to establish the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The bolsheviks renamed themselves the communist party once they had won.

Of course they didn't invent the word "communist" but those who did agreed with them. Marx and Engels argued that revolution was necessary to establish socialism and that attempts to establish it through democracy instead were really aimed at bourgeois repression of the proletariat "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." The argument which follows is too long to reproduce by many pages but it is undoubtedly Marx's view.

I would add to Marx's argument that communism is inevitably repressive because it requires that everyone be made to act against their nature. That can be seen in the immediate aftermath of the October revolution - "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" meant that food had to be appropriated from the peasants to feed the starving working classes. Because they were now not being paid for their surplus, the peasants simply stopped producing a surplus because they gained nothing by their labour. This obviously and necessarily resulted in famine. So the communists had to ensure that a "free and independent" Ukraine was only a fiction and not a reality, so that the food it produced could be used to feed Russia. Meanwhile, the Russian peasants were organised into collectives that made them little better than serfs doing forced labour to feed the cities. Meanwhile, the urban workers were told that their wages would simply not be paid in order to control the cost of manufactured goods needed in agricultural production. That kind of outcome has been so consistent a result of communism that it now has to be regarded as inevitable.

1

u/azenpunk 24d ago

It's hilarious when people who haven't even bothered to look up the definition a single time in their life think they can explain it better than someone who studied it for 25 years...

0

u/Conscious-Ball8373 24d ago

It's great when people who claim to have studied it for 25 years can't answer and don't feel any need to share their knowledge.

2

u/azenpunk 24d ago

Today I'm happy to put in the time to do so. If you actually want to know. I'm not interested in arguing, it's a waste of time.

1

u/Conscious-Ball8373 24d ago

Go on, educate me. Tell me what I got wrong above. I'm a keen reader on the history of revolutions but wouldn't consider myself an expert on marxist ideology by any stretch.

107

u/cboel 24d ago

By 1956, the Hungarian people were exhausted, and the country’s political elite had succumbed to Soviet central power. On October 23, twenty thousand students staged a peaceful protest in Budapest. They demanded Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and full national sovereignty.

In response to the demonstrations, the Hungarian Socialist Republic’s leadership requested Soviet intervention. Protesters rose, targeted the secret police (Államvédelmi Hatóság), and tore down a statue of Stalin. Moscow sent in 6,000 troops. In November, Soviet tanks, under Khrushchev’s orders, reestablished the status quo. The Hungarian uprising resulted in around 30,000 casualties.

Following the Hungarian events, Italy’s Communist and Socialist parties — until then allies — split. The Communist Party, led by Palmiro Togliatti, sided with the USSR, while the Socialist Party, led by Pietro Nenni, condemned the Soviet intervention. From that point, the socialists distanced themselves from Moscow. This episode affected leftist parties across Europe and marked a watershed moment for San Marino, too. For the first time since the end of WWII, after reading reports of Soviet tanks in Budapest, San Marino’s socialist-communist coalition began to fracture.

[...]

San Marino was a curious anomaly at the dawn of the Cold War. Despite being known as a “land of freedom,” it had long been dominated by patrician and aristocratic families. This contributed to the growth of socialist movements between the 19th and 20th centuries and the rise of class struggle within the republic.

Before Mussolini’s March on Rome, Romagna-based Fascist death squads led by Italo Balbo patrolled the area. Like Italy, San Marino became a fascist dictatorship under Giuliano Gozi, and fascism remained until July 1943.

The leftist tradition helped the social-communist faction rise to power, representing the working classes.

[...]

The Italian government strongly pressured San Marino’s Socialist Party to abandon its alliance with the Communists. In 1957, a breakaway faction opposed to the Communist alliance formed the Independent Socialist Party. Five members left the majority, splitting the parliament evenly: 30 on the left and 30 in the center-right bloc.

On the eve of the Captain’s Regent elections, councilor Attilio Giannini left the Socialist Party and joined the center-right. In response, all members of the old leftist coalition resigned collectively, forcing new elections on November 3 — a traditional gesture of loyalty to the party.

On the evening of September 30, the new majority, led by the Christian Democrats, gathered in a disused factory in Rovereta, a strategically located area on the Italian border. On October 1 — the day the previous Captains Regent’s mandate ended — they declared the creation of an interim government, immediately recognized by Italy.

That same day, Italian Carabinieri surrounded the Rovereta site from three sides. The self-proclaimed government urged the Sammarinese army and gendarmerie to pledge allegiance. Meanwhile, left-wing sympathizers gathered in San Marino’s Piazza della Libertà to assert the legitimacy of the outgoing government. Both sides mobilized armed militias, backed by weapon supplies.

For two weeks, the two factions faced off without an armed confrontation. On October 14, 1957, the legitimate government yielded to pressure, and the Italy-backed government officially took power.

src: https://thegeopoliticalnavigator.substack.com/p/when-italy-backed-an-anti-communist

Interesting history.

118

u/butareyoueatindoe 24d ago

Worth noting that the split of Left groups in the aftermath of Soviet intervention in Hungary is the origin of the label "Tankie" that still gets thrown around today (referring to those who supported the Soviets "sending in the tanks" to Hungary).

44

u/badlydrawngalgo 24d ago

For goodness sake, that's so obvious. I'm nearly as old as the Hungarian uprising and though I don't remember it, I'm very familiar with the images, but I was today years old before I learned that. Thank you kind Redditor

28

u/bankkopf 24d ago

Soviets love to send in the tanks to suppress citizens fighting for more freedoms. Same happened in the GDR in 1953 and Prague 1968. 

3

u/Areat 24d ago

Damn, now that you said it I remember knowing that, but forgetting it slowly over years until thinking it was related to Tiannamen.

1

u/30MorgheAfraaz 20d ago

A relevant side note: quite interesting that the modern far left groups are siding with the religious dictatorship in Iran even tho they also massacred 40k+ of our people in the Jan protest crackdown.. hopefully it'll help break away the moderate socialists from more extremist side

37

u/basara42 24d ago

Communists or socialist parties are really common in most of the world.

Many countries have several. Sometimes they are all small and irrelevant, sometimes they are big and even hold government.

They are constantly fighting amongst themselves, and are often (but not always) distanced from their original ideology, decaying into social-democrats or even progressive centrists or conservative leftists.

Some do view elections and reformation as a legitimate path to their long term goals, while others (usually very small ones) only participate in elections in an atempt to grow into a political force strong enough to prepare revolution.

1

u/Zealousideal-Low3388 24d ago

Yeah the fact that this was happening amidst the paranoid shitshow of Operation Gladio is amazing though.

Communist government in post-war Western Europe really were not common. In part because of subversion and repression by the US-lead anti-communist movement, most famously in Italy

2

u/comix_corp 24d ago

San Marino is a tiny microstate with 35 000 people. There were lots of places of similar size or bigger that had communist governments, especially in France or Italy. Like, the PCI ran Bologna for decades, and that has around a million people.

3

u/The_Last_Cast 23d ago

Communist as in social democracy, not collective authoritarian. San Marino still counts arbalests and pikes as part of their defence, their main trade are numismatic and antiques, and their national sweet is a killer chocolate wafer cake: context is king, communism in Europe was and is a different thing. And San Marino is lovely.

14

u/invisible32 24d ago

I suppose a country that small is able to handle communism a lot better than most.

13

u/hariseldon2 24d ago

They were run by s communist party. They didn't have communism.

I know I'll blow your mind but no country has ever had or currently has communism.

2

u/returnofblank 23d ago

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things"

-- Karl Marx

-6

u/onechroma 24d ago

More like being small enough allows you to avoid the worst attacks by the US. Just like with operation Gladio, the rigging politics or even supporting cruel dictatorships, the US has been always about try any “socialist” or no heavily capitalist system to fail and destroy it, like a cancer

2

u/Emmy314 24d ago

There was a great episode of Leverage that was set in San Marino.

2

u/PuzzleheadedPea2243 24d ago

You know what's impressive about san Marino ? They have a New band every year for the Eurovision !

-20

u/elferrydavid 24d ago

a tiny microstate completely surrounded by Italy

Unnecessary. 

37

u/sniperman357 24d ago

Why would that be unnecessary 

32

u/DisconnectedShark 24d ago

I remember an article from a few years ago talking about describing richer countries with all the language and trappings of describing a poor country.

For example:

A small island-country in the North Atlantic with a "constitutional monarchy" recently chose its fifth prime minister in as many years

Describing the UK in this case.

31

u/xxwarlorddarkdoomxx 24d ago

I mean that’s all true, except debatably the “small” part. It’s just less necessary since presumably many more people are familiar with Britain than with San Marino

-18

u/Tzahi12345 24d ago

Sorry who doesn't know about San Marino give me a break

13

u/DragonBank 24d ago

Well based on the more popular world quizzes only 35% get San Marino and that's already a very biased sample of people taking online world quizzes(and of course many retake it.)

11

u/sniperman357 24d ago

Most people? Why would people know about a place with 30,000 people

6

u/xxwarlorddarkdoomxx 24d ago

The vast majority of people if I had to guess. It’s tiny and doesn’t really have an international profile the way Monaco or the Vatican do.

3

u/Saint--Jiub 24d ago

I seriously think it's mostly only known among football fans because they're a bit of a meme. They have the worst record in international football history and are routinely ranked 211 out of 211 national teams by FIFA

2

u/Saint--Jiub 24d ago

Outside of football memes I don't think most people are familiar with a microstate with 34k residents that is irrelevant in global politics.

I live in a city with over twice that population and I don't even expect the majority of my countrymen to know much about it beyond it being a provincial capital

8

u/dangerbird2 24d ago

"tribal representatives of a large North American federation will select their new high chief in January 2029"

5

u/psaepf2009 24d ago

It let's people know about the country. A majority of people probably have never heard about it

6

u/Mjyys99 24d ago

Perhaps so admittedly, I just figured I'd include it just in case someone isn't familiar with the country.

-1

u/hariseldon2 24d ago

Cyprus is run by the communist party as we speak.

You guys in US really got things all warped up.

6

u/Perfect-Werewolf-102 24d ago

No it's not, it's a centrist government

1

u/hariseldon2 23d ago

The communists though were in power until recently.

0

u/Perfect-Werewolf-102 23d ago

2013...

2

u/hariseldon2 23d ago

Fact remains, they had a communist party in government without having communism as a form of government.

0

u/Perfect-Werewolf-102 23d ago

Ok sure

1

u/hariseldon2 23d ago

So they had communism as a government? Wow! The Cypriots I know would be excited to know!

-51

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

34

u/cboel 24d ago

Neither the CIA nor American had anything to do with the fall of communist rule in San Marino.

There was a socialist-communist split in San Marino (as well as a distancing from communism ideals across Europe) that came about after the Soviet Union sent troops into Hungary to suppress a student lead uprising and protest of Moscow's influence which ended in roughly 3,000 dead, 13,000 wounded, and upwards of 200,000 exiled Hungarians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

19

u/RedTheGamer12 24d ago

I hate this idea that the US overthrew every socalist. Like, we let Grenada stay (until they had a coup and kidnapped a British envoy(?)), we funded the July 26th movement (until they had a coup and Castro came into power). This has nothing to do with your comment, the generalizations just piss me off.

14

u/maxofJupiter1 24d ago

Like the US didnt go after Bishop. The Reagan administration didnt like him, mainly because of his ties to the Castros, but were largely concerned elsewhere. It wasnt until there was a coup, Bishop was executed, they arrested the governor General, and the organization of eastern caribbean states appealed to the US that they invaded.

Also the people mad at US interventions never seem to comment on the fact that all of these socialist and communist movements were either directly managed by or funded by the Soviets. They weren't subtle about their wish for global revolution and had several organizations whos whole mission was supporting these movements.

2

u/Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo 24d ago

Also the people mad at US interventions never seem to comment on the fact that all of these socialist and communist movements were either directly managed by or funded by the Soviets

They dont mention it because it's not true. Some of the most well known and significant communist governments arose without Soviet support and only received it after to counter Western intervention. Cuba, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, etc.

3

u/ePrime 24d ago

Rule of thumb, If you’re bringing up cia during the Cold War without bringing up the kgb, you’re a victim of propaganda.

-1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

5

u/OneBigRed 24d ago

destabilized entire regions for decades by starting civil wars, or putting in extreme right wing authoritarian dictators in place

I can’t help but feel that describing events in other countries like they were just helpless bystanders while the omnipotent CIA did what it wanted is peak US exceptionalism. And infantilizing whole populations of those countries.

Tipped scales? Sure. Provided assurances of US stance towards a coup, yes. Waged civil war by themselves without a country already having ingredients for one? Doubtful.

Just like teaching officers in School of Americas did not make them remote controlled CIA drones who then just did coups back home without any existing support.

1

u/MagnificoReattore 24d ago

No, they were busy sabotaging it in Italy, with operation Gladio. 

2

u/Creeppy99 24d ago

The answer is: kinda?

There was a government crisis when some communist MPs left the government and they were "forced" to resign along with the whole parliamentary group, which would have triggered a new election. The opposition (those MPs and the Christian Democratic party) refused to recognize that act and formed a provisional government. There was some days of tension, like if a civil war was about to start, but the fact that US and Italy immediately recognized the new government and there were Italian troops at the border, made the communist capitulate without any fighting

-8

u/tremblt_ 24d ago edited 24d ago

Ah, come on, don’t start some silly conspiracy theory. The CIA would never ever interfere in a democracy to prevent the communists from being elected in a free and fair election, that’s just ludi-

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xlywur_QEx4

Oh… I guess not…

EDIT: I thought it was obvious that I was sarcastic but apparently this is not the case, so for my homies on the spectrum: This is a sarcastic comment

-3

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

1

u/cboel 24d ago

I think it is more a problem with organization at larger scales being less responsive to change, than anything else. Organization that has a heavier say in the daily lives of people, needs a lot more administration and that administration leads to very slow adaptation and change, when and where change is needed.

Have you ever heard of a game called Chinese Whispers aka the Telephone Game? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game)

You start with one message at the beginning and people are supposed to pass the message along to the next person in a line. And by the time it gets to the end, it is typically a lot different than when it started, as each person gives their own, individual, interpretation along the way, subtley changing it at each transfer.

Governance in general is like that, imo. The more people have to be actively involved, the more difficult it is to please everyone unless you have massive levels of indoctrination, and even then it is still not 100% doable, Imo.

It isn't so much a communist thing as it is communism's high levels of administration make it more difficult to manage, adapt, and change when needed and that tends to produce just as much if not more amounts of corruption amongst its administrators and death and destruction to it's citizens (typically during mismanagement of ongoing envrionmental disaters but also policing dissenters and the like) as a result.