they had a large support base in many countries… it really depends on the history. Sadly a lot of the time the story goes: "communists about to take power, coalition of bourgeois states conspire to crush the communist movement - international communism (Stalin) don't help out, even tell them to wait, not act - country's communist movement is successfully crushed."
Another thing is if you consider the class composition of the socialist revolutions which happened, it might have been that really in the early 1900s the most backwards countries were too underdeveloped, and the more developed countries were too well off, maybe it was not meant to be, the world literally wasnt ready. After WW2 in the west, many movements were crushed by force.
1967 and 68 brought a wave of revolutions - and they all failed, though some came surprisingly close. Revisionism further crushed communism globaly by dismantling (outlawing, killing communists and their orgs) communist and workers power in socialist countries, which demoralized the socialist movement everywhere.
The situation right now is one of extreme duality - countries where there would be the most potential for revolution is where there is constant reactionary violence, supported directly or not by the state. In wealthy countries, they're mostly bought off, sadly, and in e.g. the US there's this duality in one country, with preemptive reaction and an atmosphere of violence among oppressed nations, and sufficient privileges and atomization for the majority of white people.>>1106523>>1106527>>1106528
:(>>1106840>like get data crunching nerds and planners to critically evaluate tasks, goals, results, etc. and work from there to get a serious organization off the ground