Thread 18128199

Everyone must be happy either voting for Party A or Party B

>>18128199 (OP)
Who says it's not honna happen again?

>>18128199 (OP)
>Party A or Party B
In civilized countries with real democracy party C, D and E are also viable choices.

>>18128199 (OP)
Not since 1848 cringe

>>18128199 (OP)
>UK but not France
?

>>18128350
France had army mutinies in 1917 but since those didn't officially seek to overthrow the government so they aren't counted. Winning the war later calmed the public.

>>18128199 (OP)
Based France being too busy just sipping wine.

>>18129085
They already had an extremely retarded revolution a little over a century before that.

>>18128263
They're usually parts of a bloc, especially today where immigration is the dividing line

>>18128350
Nothing happened in the UK proper, it's refering to Ireland
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Soviet

>>18130506
UK had social unrest after the war to the point that they deployed tanks in Glasgow. There was never enough momentum for a revolution proper but it was pretty bad.

>>18128199 (OP)
The third worldists are correct. Euros don’t care any more about commieism because they are labor aristocracy.

There are still revolutions, juntas and communists today but they are all in India, Nepal, China, Africa

>>18130499
Irrelevant social issues like migrants and trannies lead politics today. Communist party Greece was decried as NeoNazis because they voted alongside Golden Dawn in a ban on trans and gays adopting kids. Liberals are part the reason why left wing politics is so screwed up and divided along with infighting

This has less to do with communism and more to do with a wave of anti-monarchy sentiment inspired by 18th and 19th century revolutionary movements in France and the American colonies (notice the lack of revolution in France). The November Revolution for example was largely fought between Pro-Monarchist Conservatives with a weird mix of Soviets and Republicans as the opposing faction. The reason Communism was ever involved was because Marx asserted the idea that Communism was meant to succeed Classical Liberalism, and to a lot of Revolutionaries it was just a new form of Republicanism

>>18131458
Non-French WWI tank designs are so interesting to me, no other vehicles in history looked like them. Then the French made the Renault FT and everything else was old news

I wonder if they were all idling in that picture or if they were stationary as gun mounts...

>>18128199 (OP)
Well if you don't like it.. do something. You won't though, cause that requires effort and you might face consequences.

>>18131727
>Communist party Greece was decried as NeoNazis because they voted alongside Golden Dawn in a ban on trans and gays adopting kids

if it's irrelevant, why vote on it?

>>18128263
This is such a dumb cope, even in assemblies with completely contrived rules like that, parties C, D, and E are almost always part of the A/B factions, basically every single European legislative assembly is between some kind of liberal and conservative coalitions.

>>18128263
Who have the exact same opinions as party A and B, except in slightly different ratio.

>>18131767
>>18131773
>completely contrived rules like that
The only rules necessary for a multi-party system are that votes aren't thrown away and coalitions are possible. Not at all contrived. If anything, throw-your-vote-away systems are contrived.
Also there are parties orthogonal to the common left/right divide in europe, for example the danish social democrats and some german leftists (BSW) are anti-immigration, polish conservatives are pro-welfare, stuff like that. It's not common because left/right actually describes most people's opinions pretty well. Either way, the existence of multiple parties makes it easier to bridge the gap with a central party, or differentiate within a camp if you find some new topic important. For example, the green parties that sprung up in europe a couple decades ago to enforce more environmental protection.

>>18131762
This video pretty accurately describes why first world proles will never have the potential to do anything


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

>>18131802
>Also there are parties orthogonal to the common left/right divide in europe, for example the danish social democrats and some german leftists (BSW) are anti-immigration, polish conservatives are pro-welfare, stuff like that.
Okay, it's the same with American politics, the only difference is factions form within parties. Pro-gun and anti-immigrant Democrats also exist and Libertarian Republicans, the religious right, and Warhawk neocons all oppose eachother right now. Having a million different parties to represent the same things is a dumb hill to die on

>>18131810
>Click video
>Dumb premise and clickbait title
>Literal who tankie uploader
>click off video

>>18131835
And an american voter expresses his support for pro-gun democrats... how?

>>18131902
By voting for them. Like how a lot of gun owners voted for Kamala because she told Oprah that she has a Glock

>>18131915
>a lot of gun owners voted for Kamala
Lol
LMAO
She would have thrown gun owners under the bus at the first chance and you know it.

>>18131922
That's besides the point you retard

>>18131925
It's not. As candidate of the democrats, she's beholden to the opinions of all her voters, not just the pro-gun ones. And if she wanted to keep her democrats happy, she'd need to make politics for them. She couldn't just tell her congressmen and senators "ok guys I'm pro gun, anyone who agrees please vote together with the republicans on removing restrictions". That doesn't work in a two party system. But it works in a multi party system, where the pro-gun left could form a coalition with the republican (equivalent) to enact gun liberalization, and force the republicans to become a little more left wing economically in turn.

>>18131952
No I mean your retarded slippery slope fallacies about what she might do is besides the point. Nobody cares what you think, and her loss could hardly be contributed to just a difference in gun policy anyways

>>18128263
>coalition of parties A, B, and C
>coalition of parties D, E, and F.