Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What historical attempts at communist revolutions in the U.S. or similar countries can teach us about feasibility?
Executive summary
Historical attempts at communist revolution in the United States and similar democracies have been rare, fragmented, and overwhelmingly unsuccessful; major organized parties like the Communist Party USA peaked as influential social-movement actors (especially during the Depression) but never mounted a credible path to state seizure [1] [2]. Insurrections and uprising attempts that resembled revolutionary bids—such as the Green Corn Rebellion in Oklahoma—were swiftly crushed and used to justify repression, showing state capacity and public sentiment as decisive barriers [3] [2].
1. The organizational gap: small parties, big ambitions
Longstanding communist organizations in the U.S. — the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and later splinter groups such as the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) — have often been ideologically committed but numerically limited; CPUSA at times influenced labor and civil-rights campaigns but was never numerically or institutionally positioned to commandeer state power [1] [2]. RCP and like groups explicitly aim to “organize for revolution” and even plan for eventual seizure, yet their historical footprint has been marginal compared with mainstream parties and labour institutions [4] [5].
2. Failed insurrections and local rebellions: what they reveal
When localized uprisings in U.S. history mimicked revolutionary intent, they failed quickly and provoked intense repression. The 1917 Green Corn Rebellion—an explicitly socialist-tinged, rural insurrection—was labeled treasonous, crushed, and used to discredit left organizing across Oklahoma, demonstrating how fast state and public reaction can extinguish nascent revolts [3]. Broader historical patterns show that isolated armed or conspiratorial attempts without mass, organized support do not scale into successful revolutions in liberal democracies [6] [2].
3. The role of the labor movement and reformism
Scholars and contemporary commentators point to the labor movement’s choices as crucial. Where trade unions or mass labor parties aligned with revolutionary aims, outcomes differed; in the U.S., the failure to win organized-labor majorities behind socialist projects weakened prospects for systemic change [7] [8]. CPUSA’s most effective periods involved organizing unemployed workers, fighting evictions, and engaging racial justice struggles—actions that built influence but stopped short of creating a revolutionary majority or disciplined revolutionary state apparatus [2] [9].
4. State capacity, legal repression, and public opinion
Democratic institutions and law enforcement provide robust barriers to violent or clandestine seizure of power. The U.S. federal response to communist organizing — trials in 1949, surveillance, and McCarthy-era purges — demonstrates how legal and extra-legal pressures can isolate movements and blunt their growth [1] [2]. Reporting on early 20th-century episodes also shows authorities quickly equate insurgent acts with treason, further eroding popular support for revolutionary tactics [3].
5. International context and the Comintern model’s limits
Communist international strategy historically assumed the Comintern could catalyze revolution in advanced countries, but repeated failures in Europe and a shift away from “world revolution” tempered those expectations. Leninist approaches—vanguard parties, trained cadres, and international coordination—met local conditions and often failed to translate into victories in developed, democratic states [6] [10] [11]. This mismatch underlines that exporting revolution requires favorable domestic crises and mass mobilization, not only external guidance [10] [11].
6. Lessons for feasibility: prerequisites that history highlights
The historical record available in these sources points to several preconditions that were largely absent in U.S.-style democracies: a broad-based revolutionary working-class majority, decisive labor-union alignment, significant defections within the state/security apparatus, and either a breakdown of central governance or prolonged crisis enabling mass substitution of power [2] [8] [12]. Without those elements, attempts tend to be localized, quickly suppressed, or reduced to fringe political activity [3] [4].
7. Alternative pathways and contemporary debates
Some communist organizations now emphasize long-term organizing, “popular front” strategies, or building parallel institutions rather than immediate insurrection—acknowledging lessons from past failures [12] [5]. Other left critics argue the CPUSA’s compromises and international alignments undermined grassroots legitimacy, showing historic tensions between revolutionary purity and coalition politics [13] [9].
Conclusion: cautious realism grounded in history
Available reporting and historical summaries show that classical communist revolution in the U.S. or similar stable democracies has been historically infeasible without extraordinary systemic crisis, mass working-class alignment, or collapse of state institutions; isolated uprisings and small-party mobilizations repeatedly failed and provoked repression [2] [3] [1]. Contemporary actors thus face a dual choice reflected in the record: build long-term mass power within civil society and labor, or confront near-certain state pushback and isolation if attempting abrupt seizure—history provides examples and warnings, not blueprints [8] [4].