The Paris Commune was one of the first explicitly communist political actions. The 1848 revolutions happened before Marx had written the bulk of his work (and indeed, they both informed his writing). The French Revolution, much like the American revolution, is usually termed by communist academics as a 'bourgeois revolution,' a necessary stage in the historical development of capitalism, but not the proletarian revolution that communists support.

A bourgeois revolution means that it was essentially an anti-aristocratic revolution, but not an anti-class revolution. After the American and French revolutions, there were still rich and poor in America and France, but there were no longer nobles and arbitrary status determined by lineage. However, the Paris Commune, on the other hand, was an exercise in true egalitarianism.

Not sure what that other guy is talking about with Marx saying that the Commune "needed" a revolutionary terror; the Communards did kill quite a few members of the French military when they came to recapture the city, but the whole reason that the Paris Commune came to exist in the first place was because all of the people who would've been the target of a revolutionary terror had left the city in fear. Most members of the government, and anyone who had the money or influence to get out did. So really the Commune was created in a power vacuum, and there wouldn't have been anyone to commit a revolutionary terror against. The Communards were interested in other French cities joining them, but with communications at the time, and the commune being surrounded on one side by the Prussian Army, and the other side by the French Army, there wasn't really a good way to get any messages out, and anyway the situation that existed in Paris was pretty unique. Imagine if the city government in your town just left tomorrow. The Commune was less an ideologically-motivated movement and more a natural reaction by the people of Paris, who suddenly needed to organize things on their own.

So in a nutshell, that's why communists are into the Paris commune. It was a better example of functioning communism, though obviously in a much smaller timeframe, than the Soviet Union or whatever. They practiced proper worker democracy, had free education, and other things that communists like. It really is a very interesting and unique period of time in history, I recommend anyone read more about it.

One important point is that the Paris Commune was not leaded by communist, it was a regional insurection which led to a form of government idealized by the communist (the elected counsil was politically extremelly divers, lacking only the monarchists: from followers of Proudhom (anarchists) to jacobins (hawkish right wing) and radicaux (radically opposed to monarchism)), and produces socially advanced rules.
But the main point of /u/rude_communist is what explain the communist fascination with the Commune : the French revolution was a bourgeois one, while the Commune was a proletarian one. Marx had France and Germany in mind (industrialized and educated countries) when he built his theory.

It feels silly to say that the reason the Commume is more idealized is because it's Communistic. While I cannoy speak much on the Paris Commune, something I aim to fix someday, I would argue that the reason is due to the types of governments that were set up.

The French Revolution and the First Republic were fueled by Rousseau and his Enlightenment philosophy. While Rousseau could be argued as a proto-Communism, all French Revolutions set up Republican governments. So, it is more if a governmental reason, at least how I see it.

The French Revolution has held a special place in history to communists and other leftists, I think it's only very recently that this has changed. Every revolutionary movement I know of during the 19th century was inspired by it, and that includes the Paris Commune.

I think the main reason it's not such a big deal with the left today has to do with the marxist view of history and the class nature of revolutions. Since communists are for the working class revolution, the revolution to bring about capitalism just isn't necessarily all that appealing. The French Revolution wasn't only the revolution of lawyers and merchants, but it has a reputation as a bourgeois revolution and its primary gains mostly benefited the capitalist and middle classes. Still, it was The Revolution for over a century, and its leaders were inspirations. When the Russian Revolution came, however, there was a proletarian revolution that could take up the space occupied by the French Revolution in the minds of the revolutionary left. The French Revolutionaries are often compared rather unfavourably to the Russian Revolution, which had gains for women and the proletariat that were sadly lacking after the revolution of 1789.