******************** 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. Their > influence spread via journals, theoretical elaborations and debates. Ross > contends that the movement constituted a kind of ‘globalisation from below’ > – a successful combination of local democracy and open internationalism. It > could also be argued that it developed an original brand of ‘libertarian > communism’ that tried to free itself from the power and authority of a > centralised or Jacobin state. It was an experiment based on the principle of > communal autonomy and envisaged a loose association of communes established > across France in which the ide _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
