This article comes from this link.
Ten years already separate us from the day when the people of Paris, overthrowing the traitor government which had seized power at the downfall of the Empire, set themselves up as a Commune and proclaimed their absolute independence. [2]
[2] Written in March 1881.
And yet it is still towards that date of March 18, 1871, that we turn our gaze, it is to it that our best memories are attached; it is the anniversary of that memorable day that the proletariat of both hemispheres intends to celebrate solemnly, and tomorrow night hundreds of thousands of workers' hearts will beat in unison, fraternizing across frontiers and oceans, in Europe, in the United States, in South America, in memory of the rebellion of the Paris proletariat.
The fact is that the idea for which the French proletariat spilt its blood in Paris, and for which it suffered in the swamps of New Caledonia, is one of those ideas which contain a whole revolution in themselves, a broad idea which can cover with the folds of its flag all the revolutionary tendencies of the peoples marching towards their emancipation.
To be sure, if we confined ourselves to observing only the concrete and palpable deeds achieved by the Paris Commune, we would have to say that this idea was not wide enough, that it covered only a very small part of the revolutionary programme.
But if on the contrary we observe the spirit which inspired the masses of the people at the time of the movement of March 18, the tendencies which were trying to come to the surface and didn't have time to enter the realm of reality because, before coming into the open, they were already smothered under the piles of corpses--we shall then understand the whole significance of the movement and the sympathy it arouses within the masses of both hemispheres.
The Commune enraptures hearts not by what it did but by what it intended to do one day.
What was the origin of this irresistible force which draws towards the movement of 1871 the sympathy of all the oppressed masses?
What idea does the Paris Commune represent?
And why is this idea so attractive to the workers of every land, of every nationality?
The answer is easy.
The revolution of 1871 was above all a popular one.
It was made by the people themselves, it sprang spontaneously from within the masses, and it was among the great mass of the people that it found its defenders, its heroes, its martyrs--and it is exactly for this 'mob' character that the bourgeoisie will never forgive it.
And at the same time the moving idea of this revolution--vague, it is true, unconscious perhaps, but nevertheless pronounced and running through all its actions--is the idea of the social revolution, trying at last to establish after so many centuries of struggle real liberty and real equality for all.
It was the revolution of 'the mob' marching forward to conquer its rights.
Attempts have been made, it is true, and are still being made to change the real direction of this revolution and to represent it as a simple attempt to regain the independence of Paris and thus to constitute a little state within France.
But nothing can be less true.
Paris did not try to isolate itself from France, any more than to conquer it by force of arms; it did not try to shut itself up within its walls like a monk in a cloister; it was not inspired by a narrow parochial spirit.
If it claimed its independence, if it wished to prevent the interference of the central power in its affairs, it was because it saw in that independence a means of quietly working out the bases of future organization and bringing about within itself a social revolution--a revolution which would have completely transformed the whole system of production and exchange by basing them on justice, which would have completely modified human relations by putting them on a footing of equality, and which would have remade the morality of our society by giving it a basis in the principles of equity and solidarity.
Communal independence was then but a means for the people of Paris, and the social revolution was their end.
This end would have certainly been attained if the revolution of March 18 had been able to take its natural course, if the people of Paris had not been slashed, stabbed, shot and disembowelled by the murderers of Versailles.
To find a clear and precise idea, comprehensible to everyone and summing up in a few words what had to be done to bring about the revolution--such was indeed the preoccupation of the people of Paris from the earliest days of their independence.
But a great idea does not germinate in a day, however rapid the elaboration and propagation of ideas during revolutionary periods.
It always needs a certain time to develop, to spread throughout the masses, and to translate itself into action, and the Paris Commune lacked this time.
It lacked more than this, because ten years ago the ideas of modern socialism were themselves passing through a period of transition.
The Commune was born so to speak between two eras in the development of modern socialism.
In 1871 the authoritarian, governmental, and more or less religious communism of 1848 no longer had any hold over the practical and libertarian minds of our era.
Where could you find today a Parisian who would agree to shut himself up in a Phalansterian barracks?
On the other hand the collectivism which wished to yoke together the wage system and collective property remained incomprehensible, unattractive, and bristling with difficulties in its practical application.
And free communism, anarchist communism, was scarcely dawning; it scarcely ventured to provoke the attacks of the worshippers of governmentalism.
Minds were undecided, and the socialists themselves didn't feel bold enough to begin the demolition of individual property, having no definite end in view.
Then they let themselves be fooled by the argument which humbugs have repeated for centuries :
'Let us first make sure of victory; after that we shall see what can be done.'
First make sure of victory!
As if there were any way of forming a free commune so long as you don't touch property!
As if there were any way of defeating the enemy so long as the great mass of the people is not directly interested in the triumph of the revolution, by seeing that it will bring material, intellectual, and moral well-being for everyone!
They tried to consolidate the Commune first and put off the social revolution until later, whereas the only way to proceed was to consolidate the Commune by means of the social revolution!
The same thing happened with the principle of government.
By proclaiming the free commune, the people of Paris were proclaiming an essentially anarchist principle; but, since the idea of anarchism had at that time only faintly dawned in men's minds, it was checked half-way, and within the Commune people decided in favour of the old principle of authority, giving themselves a Commune Council, copied from the municipal councils.
If indeed we admit that a central government is absolutely useless to regulate the relations of communes between themselves, why should we admit its necessity to regulate the mutual relations of the groups which make up the commune?
And if we leave to the free initiative of the communes the business of coming to a common understanding with regard to enterprises concerning several cities at once, why refuse this same initiative to the groups composing a commune?
There is no more reason for a government inside a commune than for a government above the commune.
But in 1871 the people of Paris, who have overthrown so many governments, were making only their first attempt to rebel against the governmental system itself; so they let themselves be carried away by governmental fetishism and gave themselves a government.
The consequences of that are known.
The people sent their devoted sons to the town hall.
There, immobilized, in the midst of paperwork, forced to rule when their instincts prompted them to be and to move among the people, forced to discuss when it was necessary to act, and losing the inspiration which comes from continual contact with the masses, they found themselves reduced to impotence.
Paralysed by their removal from the revolutionary source, the people, they themselves paralysed the popular initiative.
Born during a period of transition, at a time when the ideas of socialism and authority were undergoing a profound modification; emerging from a war, in an isolated centre, under the guns of the Prussians, the Paris Commune was bound to perish.
But by its eminently popular character it began a new era in the series of revolutions, and through its ideas it was the precursor of a great social revolution.
The unheard of, cowardly, and ferocious massacres with which the bourgeoisie celebrated its fall, the mean vengeance which the torturers have perpetrated on their prisoners for nine years, these cannibalistic orgies have opened up between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat a chasm which will never be filled.
At the time of the next revolution, the people will know what has to be done; they will know what awaits them if they don't gain a decisive victory, and they will act accordingly.'
Indeed we now know that on the day when France bristles with insurgent communes, the people must no longer give themselves a government and expect that government to initiate revolutionary measures.
When they have made a clean sweep of the parasites who devour them, they will themselves take possession of all social wealth so as to put it into common according to the principles of anarchist communism.
And when they have entirely abolished property, government, and the state, they will form themselves freely according to the necessities dictated to them by life itself.
Breaking its chains and overthrowing its idols, mankind will march them towards a better future, no longer knowing either masters or slaves, keeping its veneration only for the noble martyrs who paid with their blood and sufferings for those first attempts at emancipation which have lighted our way in our march towards the conquest of freedom.
This series of posts will insure that these free thinkers' works live on in living memory.
If only a few.
There is a reason these books are not taught in the modern skools.
Setting rewards to burn only burns the author portion of the payout.
If you think this type of content should be eligible for author rewards, make your voice heard in this community:
https://peakd.com/c/hive-104940/created
This whole idea of collective action, of communes and communism, is only suitable for domestic animals, IMHO. We largely are domestic animals, TBH. That explains why every commune I've ever had occasion to inspect had a Commune Council. I also find it difficult to devise a mechanism of managing a property in which non-members of a commune, folks not adhering to a set of specific rules common to all, is any more just or fair, to be frank.
I note that often when folks of different cultural backgrounds share space, trouble comes there. Too much trouble, for me. I am not a particularly herd friendly animal, it seems. Feral.
Thanks!
Communism, the an-com type, cannot co-exist easily with crapitalism.
Crapitalism offers an immediate, tradeable payout whereas communism makes you wait until your social circle decides to make a fuss about you.
Money can buy you friends, but it can't buy you reverence.
That takes living right.
Someone's poverty is someone else's wealth.
Congratulations @antisocialist! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts: