POSTING RULES NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*
I don't agree with Professor Marliere's counterposing of 'the good
artistic, internationalist, libertarian communism' of the commune vs.
the 'harshly authoritarian and militaristic centralism' supposedly
advocated by Marx and Lenin.
Back in September 1870 Marx, on behalf of the First International, had
advised that it would be folly to attempt a workers insurrection in
Paris against the French government. The revolutionary and socialist
minded Parisian workers were mainly followers of Proudhonist ideas of
reformist and utopian socialism. Even if they had had the level of
political understanding and organization necessary to lead an
effective revolutionary struggle, Marx could see that the
international balance of forces dictated their defeat.
The socialist-minded workers of Paris let a whole six months go by
without organizing and initiating serious ongoing revolutionary
struggle. With de facto control of Paris they could have taken
control of the national bank and other central levers of power. They
could have taken the political initiative to militarily attack the
Thiers government instead of waiting to be attacked.
In March 1871 when workers, led by the central committee of the
National Guard, did resist the French government's initial attempts to
regain control of Paris and initiated the struggle known as the Paris
Commune, Marx gave their struggle his full support. Marx did note
afterward that their decision to transfer revolutionary leadership
from the central committee of the National Guard to the elected
'artistic, internationalist, libertarian' loose commune of local
representatives was a self-defeating political step backward. To
illustrate by continuing my exaggeration, i think we of the 60s
generation can understand the change in leadership as something like
the difference between the political leftist activists and the
counterculture hippie communalists.
I read John Merriman's new book on the commune, Massacre: The Life and
Death of the Paris Commune of 1871. I don't recommend it to socialists
who already know about the commune. It is practically apolitical,
rubbing your face in the blood and gore of the government's repression
and re-conquest of Paris - while making sure to play up every bloody
response from the commune side. I am not taking issue with Marliere's
evaluation of that book - except that he ignores Merriman's recounting
of the commune's poorly organized and sloppy defense. These points
illustrate - contra Marliere - that the commune could have used strong
centralized military leadership.
Of course Marx's main lesson about the Paris Commune was succinctly
repeated from The Civil War in France in the preface to the 1872
German edition of The Communist Manifesto: One thing especially was
proved by the Commune, namely, that 'the working class cannot simply
lay hold of the ready-made State machinery, and wield it for its own
purposes.'
(btw I think that this major 1870s post-Commune correction to the
Communist Manifesto is hard to explain for those who have argued on
this list that Marx and Engels had already solved all strategic issues
of socialist revolution in 1848)
Marx felt that the Commune might have saved itself had it dealt more harshly
with its political opponents and centralised all powers and institutions in
the hands of a revolutionary organisation. After 1871, this was the issue
that divided Marxists and anarchists. Lenin’s militarist conception of
political action and the vanguard party was at odds with the anarchist
approach, which advocated a general strike followed by the immediate
dismantling of the state by decentralised workers’ councils. In this respect
the Commune was far more in tune with anarchist culture than with orthodox
Marxism. Marx, Engels and Lenin criticised the Communards for failing to
take over capitalist institutions – for instance, the assets of the French
banks were not confiscated – and thought they showed ‘excessive magnanimity’
in dealing with counter-revolutionary agents, saboteurs and spies. They also
believed the Commune paid too little attention to military training and
discipline.
The philosophy that prevailed among the Communards had more to do with
Rousseauian ideas of freedom and true democracy. Although the Commune only
lasted 72 days, it shouldn’t be regarded as a political failure but as a
time of intense solidarity – an aspect the Marxist interpretation tends to
underplay. In fact, the Communards were the first genuine internationalists:
Reclus, Lefrançais, Verlaine, Vermersch, Rimbaud, Vaillant and Lafargue were
exiled to London or Geneva and met with like-minded supporters.
