https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/inventors-unknown-0

Inventors of the unknown
LYDIA SAMARBAKHSH explores the leading role played by women struggling for a 
society of a new type during the Paris Commune

Friday 14th May 2021


A barricade thrown up by Communard National Guards on 18 March 1871
SINCE the emergence in 2017 of the #MeToo movement, a real groundswell globally 
has taken hold which opposes violence against women, gender inequality and the 
stifling patriarchy fuelling capitalist domination and exploitation.

This transformative struggle is an essential dimension of the fight for 
emancipation and it is part of the long history of the workers’ and people’s 
movements.

In France, it is rooted in the peasant and pre-industrial revolts from the time 
of the Renaissance and successive centuries when the old regime was being 
eroded. They were times when women were not just participants in the movement 
but also the leaders of various uprisings. The same is true of the Paris 
Commune.

>From the first to the last day of the Commune in May 1871, women “communardes” 
>were not just part of a popular movement — they formed a mass movement. The 
>part played by women, spontaneous and at times improvised, was crucial.

Not only were the communardes engaged in action, they often sparked it. They 
drew inspiration from the struggle of the women who gave the 1789 Revolution 
its political intent to abolish privilege. Women were in at the beginning of 
the insurrections of 1793 and 1795 and a few had already taken part in the 
revolutions of 1830 and 1848.

At each stage of this long and slow revolutionary process, women imposed 
themselves as political actors, even though their political rights were not 
recognised, including by their own comrades.

The question for them was to not allow themselves to be locked in the 
ideological straitjacket of the role of “reproducer,” remaining cloistered at 
home as passive recipients of the events which surrounded them. Although they 
did not have the right to vote and had no right of representation as they could 
not be elected, they were nevertheless entrusted by the Commune with leading 
responsibilities of strategic significance.

In Paris in 1870-1871, there were 62,000 women in the working-class 
neighbourhoods, who made up more than half of the city’s 114,000 work force and 
they represented the majority of the women who had been mobilised.

They aspired to improve their own conditions as well as wanting to contribute 
to the social dynamics of existing society and the new one that the 
revolutionary movement sought to bring into being.

Seeking to rupture, at a single stroke, bosses’ domination at work and male 
domination in the family and social relations, those women provided the commune 
with its full revolutionary dimension and its true democratic, social, secular, 
egalitarian and internationalist character.

Nathalie Le Mel and Elisabeth Dmitrieff, who helped launch the Union of Women 
for the Defence of Paris and the Care of the Wounded, declared their 
revolutionary aims: “We want the work so we can keep the profit. We do not want 
any more exploiters, any more masters.”

Women communardes took part in the battles at the barricades and in the rear 
they worked round the clock to help with caring and ensuring provisions were 
available. They swelled the ranks of rallies, processions, meetings and popular 
assemblies, where they spoke and debated as equals to men.

Like their 1793 predecessors, they intended to be citizens with full rights — 
the fundamental rights which are still today the basis of the social demands of 
working women and men. And they aimed to gain total social and economic 
independence — at the time, they were paid half as much as men.

They agitated for the right to divorce and recognition of common-law unions, 
the separation of church and state, the replacement of nuns in hospitals and 
schools and the creation of schools for girls, to guarantee their access to 
education as a universal and fundamental right.

>From the improvement to their living standards and working conditions to the 
>recognition of their place in society, they fought for social transformation 
>and emancipation, opening the possibility of a classless society.

At the launch of the Women’s Union, they proclaimed: “Inequality and antagonism 
between the sexes constitute one of the bases of the power of the governing 
classes.”

The women suffered more than men from the stigma of class contempt and this is 
still true today. A crowd of fighting women, especially from the working class, 
was considered by the bourgeoisie and the dominant classes as more dangerous 
and threatening to order and power.

This is why they paid such a high price for their decisive contribution to the 
commune.

During Bloody Week and throughout the years of repression which followed, women 
were the equals of men as victims of the violence unleashed against them. They 
were killed, wounded, raped, imprisoned, executed, exiled or sent to prison.

Fully aware of the obstacles they faced, the women communardes led the 
political fight with great alacrity. One such was Andre Leo — real name Leodile 
Champeix — who, along with Louise Michel, led the demonstrations of September 8 
1871 and demanded to be armed to fight the Prussians.

She wrote: “Do we believe we can make the revolution without the women? For 80 
years now, we have been trying and we have not succeeded. Why is that? It is 
because many republicans have dethroned the emperor and the good God only to 
put themselves in their place: they need subjects.”

Jean Jaures, founder and editor of the socialist paper l’Humanite, underlined 
the point in an article marking the 36th anniversary of the commune: “It did 
everything in its power but history hardly repeats itself,” he wrote.

“The commune was born of exceptional circumstances that will not be repeated in 
their exact form; revolutionary genius is not made of plagiarism and it is not 
by slavishly copying its own past that the revolution progresses.”

This is why an in-depth study and critical analysis of those 72 exceptional 
days of the commune and of the political role the communardes played does not 
need to deliver lessons to be learned or timeless or absolute formulas to be 
implemented.

On the contrary, it constitutes an invitation to “invent the unknown.” As Marx 
stated: “The working class did not expect miracles from the commune. It knows 
that in order to achieve its own emancipation and with it that higher form of 
life to which present-day society leads to irresistibly ... it will have to go 
through long struggles, through a whole series of historical processes that 
will completely transform the circumstances themselves.

“It does not have to reach any ideal but while the old bourgeois society is 
collapsing it needs to liberate the elements of the new society which the 
bourgeoisie carries in its flanks.”

That is why the mobilisation of the women communardes — and of women this 
century — against all forms of domination and exploitation are “elements of the 
new society” whose liberation is initiated decisively by the emancipation of 
labour and creative forces. They will eventually defeat the capitalist system.

Lydia Samarbakhsh is a member of the Central Committee and the International 
Department of the French Communist Party. Translation by Mary Adossides.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#8594): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8594
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82871354/21656
-=-=-
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.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to