The Jacobins and the Paris Commune (split from The Situation in Greece)

[Paulappaul]

The Communards did indeed have a revolutionary party, the Blanquists. Responsible for all its revolutionary measures, while the Proudhonists and the more right wing elements in the International caused problems, and Bakunin's people caused different problems.

The Blanquists were not a revolutionary party. Infact it was the Jacobins who the Proletarit placed their faith in and consequently as with all revolutionary parties they took up reformist and immediate measures. Marx was critiqual of this, the revolutionary task was to nationalize the bank immediatly and to continue the revolution to the other working class districts rather then isolate the revolution. There were 2 Proudhonists, they had no significant presence. However it was a Proudhonist that contacted Marx for guidance with what he should do in the Paris Commune, for which Marx rambled about the autonomy of the proletarit. There were no Bakuninists, except for the few who were more in line with Blanquists.



One of Marx's conclusions from the experience was that the First International experiment of an amorphous bloc of all left wing political tendencies was unworkable, though it had been useful at first to help the working class organize itself.

I dont disagree. I think Marx realized that the internal feuds of the International had zero relevance to the working class and to what he originally imaged the International to do, i.e. to organize the class in and for itself, to clarify and popularize its struggles. It was actually Bakunin, who standed more in line with the position that there needs to be a revolutionary organization which plots the revolution.

[bricolage]

The Marxist Historian has no idea what he is talking about in regards to the Paris Commune and Blanquists, I recently wrote a post about this here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2158678&postcount=2) Incidentally though Paulappaul it was a Proudhonist, Charles Beslay, who was appointed as the delegate to the bank which might go some way to explaining the approach he took. I'm not sure I agree with you about there being only two Proudhonists (especially as this is very hard to measure) but this thread is meant to be about Greece and I already think it's got a bit sidetracked, maybe this discussion could be split at some point?

[A Marxist Historian]

The Blanquists were not a revolutionary party. Infact it was the Jacobins who the Proletarit placed their faith in and consequently as with all revolutionary parties they took up reformist and immediate measures. Marx was critiqual of this, the revolutionary task was to nationalize the bank immediatly and to continue the revolution to the other working class districts rather then isolate the revolution. There were 2 Proudhonists, they had no significant presence. However it was a Proudhonist that contacted Marx for guidance with what he should do in the Paris Commune, for which Marx rambled about the autonomy of the proletarit. There were no Bakuninists, except for the few who were more in line with Blanquists.

Of course the *original* Jacobins of Robespierre were not a working class party at all, but a bourgeois party. It would be simplistic I am sure to say that of the Jacobins of the year 1871. But this nonetheless indicates that the Commune experience was problematic.

The Blanquists were not about to ask Marx for advice, as the line between Marxism and Blanquism was quite sharp, indeed I am not sure even if the Blanquists were part of the First International. Nonetheless, Marx thought that they were the best revolutionaries in the Commune, according to my understanding at least. I did study an interesting collection of writings on the Commune some 15 years ago, but I do not consider myself an expert.


I dont disagree. I think Marx realized that the internal feuds of the International had zero relevance to the working class and to what he originally imaged the International to do, i.e. to organize the class in and for itself, to clarify and popularize its struggles. It was actually Bakunin, who standed more in line with the position that there needs to be a revolutionary organization which plots the revolution.

Marx's position was that, especially given the defeat of the Commune, the immediate task was to organize the working class, not to plot revolution, and that this could probably best be done country by country rather than by an international organization, especially one in which Bakunin and Bakuninism had influence. So after the Bakuninists were expelled, he wrapped it up and dissolved it, as continuing it would simply have meant an opportunist British trade unionist international or perhaps a Proudhonist international. The only Marxist workers party was the German one, at that time far too weak to bear the burden of organizing an International on its back.

In fact, the International was transferred to American shores at first, where Marx thought it might possibly still have a role to play. At that point, one of the most solid *Marxists* in the USA was ... Samuel Gompers! Need I say more?

His, or rather Engels's, position changed when German Social Democracy, a more or less Marxist party, became a mass party and the strongest working class party in the world.

This created the possibility of a *Marxist* International, so Engels endorsed the Second International and became a prominent figure in it.

-M.H.-

[bricolage]

It would be simplistic I am sure to say that of the Jacobins of the year 1871.
Talking about a group of 'Jacobins' in 1871 is largely writing history backwards. It would have been hard to find any that would have self-identified as that then as even in that case they would have been virtually indistinguishable from the Blanquists (themselves hard to identify too). The legacy of the French revolutionary tradition permeated most of the Communards but that didn't mean it didn't intersect with other, more radical views.

The Blanquists were not about to ask Marx for advice, as the line between Marxism and Blanquism was quite sharp, indeed I am not sure even if the Blanquists were part of the First International.
No they weren't, Blanqui and some others had originally planned to intervene at the 1866 Geneva congress to counter the dominance of the Proudhonists but called it off at the last minute. Blanqui attended the 1868 Brussels congress as an auditor but never played an active role.

Nonetheless, Marx thought that they were the best revolutionaries in the Commune, according to my understanding at least.
I'm not sure where you've got this from as it doesn't line up with anything I've ever read on the Commune.

So after the Bakuninists were expelled, he wrapped it up and dissolved it, as continuing it would simply have meant an opportunist British trade unionist international or perhaps a Proudhonist international.
I'm not sure but I was under the impression that especially at the beginning at maybe even up to the Commune itself, the Proudhonists were the largest member group in the International. With that in mind Marx certainly had no problems then working within a 'Proudhonist international'.

[A Marxist Historian]

Talking about a group of 'Jacobins' in 1871 is largely writing history backwards. It would have been hard to find any that would have self-identified as that then as even in that case they would have been virtually indistinguishable from the Blanquists (themselves hard to identify too). The legacy of the French revolutionary tradition permeated most of the Communards but that didn't mean it didn't intersect with other, more radical views.

No they weren't, Blanqui and some others had originally planned to intervene at the 1866 Geneva congress to counter the dominance of the Proudhonists but called it off at the last minute. Blanqui attended the 1868 Brussels congress as an auditor but never played an active role.

I'm not sure where you've got this from as it doesn't line up with anything I've ever read on the Commune.

I'm not sure but I was under the impression that especially at the beginning at maybe even up to the Commune itself, the Proudhonists were the largest member group in the International. With that in mind Marx certainly had no problems then working within a 'Proudhonist international'.

I did some study of the Commune some 15 years ago, read a lot of stuff, but at this point my memory is hazy as to exactly where I read about Marx and the Blanquists in the Commune.

What I am quite certain is that the Blanquists *were* the ones in the Commune advocating the kind of revolutionary measures that Marx said would have been necessary in his pamphlet on th Commune.

Indeed Marx had no problem working in a mish-mosh International of every possible working class tendency before the Paris Commune.

After the Commune, which posed the question of working class *power,* not just organizing the working class in the first place, the First International was no longer a workable experiment.

The secretive conspiracism of Buonarotti, the original founder of communism from whose "Conspiracy of the Equals" we are all descended, was perfectly appropriate in his time, and the First International was perfectly appropriate in the 1860s.

Nowadays, in the era of monopoly capitalist imperialism, in which the world is rotten-ripe for socialism and the working class worldwide is a *vastly* higher percentage of the population than ever before, and we even have a previous experiment in workers rule to look back on and analyze, a Leninist-type party is the appropriate revolutionary tool.

Experience has demonstrated that, and demonstrated the futility of anything else.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

Ninety years of continued failures and counting, why not keep going?

[bricolage]

I did some study of the Commune some 15 years ago, read a lot of stuff, but at this point my memory is hazy as to exactly where I read about Marx and the Blanquists in the Commune.
If you remember what it was I would be very interested to read it.

What I am quite certain is that the Blanquists *were* the ones in the Commune advocating the kind of revolutionary measures that Marx said would have been necessary in his pamphlet on th Commune.
But what Blanquists are we talking about here? 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. Beyond this though it's hard to say, in fact I might even suggest that due to the secretive nature of Blanquist organisation, Communard Blanquists might not have even known who other Communard Blanquists were!

[A Marxist Historian]

If you remember what it was I would be very interested to read it.

But what Blanquists are we talking about here? 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. Beyond this though it's hard to say, in fact I might even suggest that due to the secretive nature of Blanquist organisation, Communard Blanquists might not have even known who other Communard Blanquists were!

It was a compilation of original documents from the Commune, about 150-200 pages worth, including some minutes. Read it for a class. I'll have to burrow through some old notes from 15 years ago to track it down. I will do so soon.

BTW, Marx made it pretty clear in his famous pamphlet that he had no problem with any alleged "excesses" allegedly committed by the Commune.

-M.H.-

[bricolage]

BTW, Marx made it pretty clear in his famous pamphlet that he had no problem with any alleged "excesses" allegedly committed by the Commune
I was mostly referring the the shooting of hostages which was at the time seen as the 'worst' of the 'excesses'. I'm not trying to make an value judgement on it.

[A Marxist Historian]

I was mostly referring the the shooting of hostages which was at the time seen as the 'worst' of the 'excesses'. I'm not trying to make an value judgement on it.

Understood. Be it noted that Marx *defended* the shooting of hostages in his famous pamphlet. Though I think in some of his letters to Engels, not for the public, he had a different view. Not "on principle," but given the situation, that the reactionaries would just use that as an excuse for large-scale massacres. Which they did.

-M.H.-

[bricolage]

Understood. Be it noted that Marx *defended* the shooting of hostages in his famous pamphlet. Though I think in some of his letters to Engels, not for the public, he had a different view. Not "on principle," but given the situation, that the reactionaries would just use that as an excuse for large-scale massacres. Which they did.
The shooting of the hostages came about due to the failure of swapping them for political prisoners outside of Paris (most notably of course Blanqui) but in a broader sense the failure of the Commune to expand beyond itself. Thiers didn't ever believe they would have the guts to do it (especially the Archbishop) and the Blanuists wanted to prove they did. What they wouldn't see is that by then the Commune was essentially dead itself, and the blood they splilt would be nothing in comparison to that of the Tragic Week. Incidentally though there is much to suggest many generals were more enraged by the toppling of the Vendome column than they were by the dead hostages, the former in my opinion also carrying far more political importance.