Blanqui and the Paris Commune

[Ilyich]

I have just finished reading Lissagaray's History of the Paris Commune and Marx's The Civil War in France. The Paris Commune was one of the best example of true socialism and democracy in history. It surprised me to learn that the very undemocratic "socialist" Louis Auguste Blanqui was elected (in absentia) president of the Commune. What role did Blanqui and his followers play in the Paris Commune and why did such undemocratic people play a role in such a democratic and socialist institution?

[bricolage]

He wasn't elected President as far as I know, just as a delegate, additionally the Communards were pretty adamant that they had no such post;

‘We are receiving many letters addressed to the President of the Commune. We do not have and will not have a President. Please address letters to the members of the Commune, Hotel de Ville’
He was of course in jail at the time, attempts were made to secure his release by offering several hostages including the Archbishop of Paris but these were rejected. Thiers seemed to doubt they would actually harm the hostages - "they talk of that... but, you will see, they will never do it" - he was of course mistaken.

Most historians seem to estimate there were eight to eleven Blanquists on the Communal Assembly but this is problematic as they - like every tendency read back onto the Commune - did not form a separate voting bloc and were largely indistinguishable from the 'Jacobins'. Blanquists were probably most prominent in the police agencies with individuals such as Rigault and Ferre blamed by many for the worst excesses of the Commune.

As for why they played such a role, well they were a major tendency within French political thought and action at the time. They were very conspiratorial and secretive so guessing their numbers is difficult, in any case you could probably distinguish between the immediate network of militants (who probably didn't even all know who each other were) and the wider network of supporters - in a way pretty similar to how Maoist movements operate today. I've got some thing here saying that an Inspector Lagrange estimated that by 1870 this secret network of paramilitary cells numbered 3000 but he was probably beefing up the numbers. However several historians state that on January 12th 1870 somewhere between 700-2000 (a massive range) Blanquists marched at the funeral of Victor Noir. On 14th August they launched a raid of an army barracks at La Villette but failed miserably.

In turn the Communards had no really say on who was represented in the Commune because neither the Communards nor the Commune were/was a homogenous entity. There was massive a divergence in beliefs and ideologies so it's hardly surprising that a prominent strain of French socialism came to play a role.

[Tim Finnegan]

The Paris Commune was one of the best example of true socialism and democracy in history.
Democracy, arguably, but not "socialism"; that we saw in the Commune was the democratic class-rule of the proletariat, but it was not yet communism or socialism, because the social relations of capitalism had not yet been fundamentally overcome. This is a vital point of understanding in revolutionary socialism, despite the distortions offered by those who wish to conflate certain localised political formations with universal modes of production for their own political ends.

[Ilyich]

The social relations of capitalism had not yet been fundamentally overcome.

Were the means of production not owned by the proletariat in the Paris Commune?

[Tim Finnegan]

Were the means of production not owned by the proletariat in the Paris Commune?
I am not given to understand that this was wholly the case, no, but even if it was, it would not change my point; redistribution of wealth along mutualist lines is not socialism, or, at least, no more than a petty bourgeois socialism. To achieve socialism or communism in the Marxian sense, the fundamental social relations of generalised commodity production which alienate the worker from their labour would have to be undone, and society reconstitute in the form of a "communist" or "associated mode of production". The Commune never had the chance to advance very far towards such an outcome, let alone to embody it. Social revolution, as Marx understood it, is a process, not an event, and not something that is ever likely to be completed in less than three months, amid the chaos of borderline-siege conditions.

[Ilyich]

You mention alienation. By this do you mean that socialism can only be achieved when the division of labor, which alienates the worker from the product of his/her labor, is broken down? If not, what are the conditions that define socialism?

[Tim Finnegan]

You mention alienation. By this do you mean that socialism can only be achieved when the division of labor, which alienates the worker from the product of his/her labor, is broken down? If not, what are the conditions that define socialism?
Exactly that, yes. Capitalism and communism are not defined simply by the distribution of property as such, but by the social relations that constitute the fundamental material basis of production in each society. For socialism to be achieved- assuming that we're using the term interchangeably with Marx's "communism"- the social relations of capital must be entirely dissolved, and a new set of social relations established, those of the "associated mode of production".

[bricolage]

Tim Finnegan is right to say the Paris Commune was not socialist, even Marx at the time noting that "the majority of the Commune was in no wise socialist, nor could it be".

The economic measures of the Commune were in turn not very far reaching at all and few in number including banning night work for bakers or the decree on rents. The most commonly cited example is the that of the 16 April calling for the establishment of co-operatives. However this was not very radical at all, co-operatives were already established in France and it speaks of providing compensation for previous owners as opposed to just appropriating them unilaterally. In the first instance 10 workplaces were occupied in response, by the end of the Commune I think it numbered 43. Towards the end the Engineers Union suggested taking over the Barriquand works, one of the largest engineering factories in Paris (illustrating that most radical moves did not come from the Communal Council itself) but of course everyone was dead before this could be carried out.

All this is why Marx spoke of it as 'political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of labour'... the latter never happened in the Commune.