Even decades after the event, arguably no socialist or working-class movement anywhere in the world had so effective a device for arousing sentiment as did France in calling upon the legacy of the Paris Commune – the mostly working-class rebellion that controlled the city for three months in the spring ...
(Show more)Even decades after the event, arguably no socialist or working-class movement anywhere in the world had so effective a device for arousing sentiment as did France in calling upon the legacy of the Paris Commune – the mostly working-class rebellion that controlled the city for three months in the spring of 1871 before being put down with great violence. But in the wake of the Russian Revolution of 1905 – the largest rebellion in Europe to involve the working class since 1871 – what exactly did the legacy of the Commune stand for? The memory of the Commune had, by the turn-of-the-century, become politicized and ritualized, yet still served as an inspiration for the French left and for others across the world. But did the events of 1871 offer any genuine practical lessons for those striving to keep its memory alive or, as in the case of Russia, engaged in political struggle? Was the Commune the last spasm of a revolutionary tradition that began in 1789, or was it a sign of things to come, and in this sense a model for the history unfolding in Russia in 1905?
In the years before 1905, the French left responded ambiguously at best and more often with an implicit “no” to the premise that the Commune offered a model from which to draw practical examples. At the same time many labor leaders and organizations eagerly latched onto its inspirational legacy. This may have been a predictable development given the harshness with which the Commune was repressed and the evolutionary political direction taken by much of the political left during the fin de siècle. But at the same time, Lenin, who had a keen knowledge of the history of the Paris Commune, including the famous interpretations by Marx, accepted both the symbolic and functional legacies of the Commune, seeing in it the lessons that Marx had highlighted, as well as a blueprint for future actions. The emergence of “soviets” in Russia in 1905, and particularly the independence demonstrated by the Petersburg Soviet and the Moscow uprising of 1905, appeared to revitalize the idea that the history of 1871 still had practical lessons to offer. In time, the “meanings” of 1871 and 1905 would be joined to that of the October Revolution of 1917, with the Commune serving as a legitimating agent for the new Soviet regime. After 1921, the French Communist Party would adopt a Leninist interpretation, bringing together the Commune’s practical and inspirational legacies. The re-thinking of these years would produce a shift in the French revolutionary tradition away from its post-1871 emphasis upon defeat and uniqueness, to a new triumphalist model, still inspired by the older traditions, but now centered on the new Soviet example.
This paper draws upon primary sources from the IISH, along with several secondary sources to explore the evolving legacy of the Commune for the French left.
(Show less)