Did Marx abandon "French socialism"? [And should we?]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Paris Commune: [Proletarian] Myth vs. [Petit-Bourgeois] Reality (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/ParisCommune.html)

It is said that one of the three "sources and components" of the "Marxist" paradigm is French socialism (alongside British political economy and German philosophy surrounding the Hegelian dialectic). (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm) In the same vein as our resident anti-dialectician - Rosa - I'd like to ask a question after quoting Marx:

The Civil War in France (1871)

"It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor. Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion. The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute."

Marx to Domela Nieuwenhuis In The Hague (1881)

"Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be. With a small amount of sound common sense, however, they could have reached a compromise with Versailles useful to the whole mass of the people -- the only thing that could be reached at the time. The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to dissolve all the pretensions of the Versailles people in terror, etc., etc."



Did Marx implicitly abandon "French socialism" and express support for another form - Russian socialism - in his Letter to Vera Zasulich?

[Luís Henrique]

Paris Commune: [Proletarian] Myth vs. [Petit-Bourgeois] Reality (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/ParisCommune.html)

It is said that one of the three "sources and components" of the "Marxist" paradigm is French socialism (alongside British political economy and German philosophy surrounding the Hegelian dialectic). (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm)

I think this should not be misread. It is not the case that Marx was a Hegelian, Ricardian French socialist. His theories are based in a thorough critique of those "three sources" - and, just like his method is, according to him "the exact opposite of Hegel's", and his conclusions in Das Kapital are completely opposed to the classical economists, his positions towards Babeuf and Blanqui are by no means that of a faithful follower.


It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor. Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion. The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute.

Notice that the Paris Commune is by no means the "French Socialism" that would have been one of the "Three Sources"; on the contrary, what Marx praises in the Commune is exactly the fact that it, forced by practice, it dismissed the Blanquist delusions that were at its foundation.

Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be. With a small amount of sound common sense, however, they could have reached a compromise with Versailles useful to the whole mass of the people -- the only thing that could be reached at the time. The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to dissolve all the pretensions of the Versailles people in terror, etc., etc.

It is no secret that Marx did not believe the Paris Commune could be successful; as he says, it was the uprising of an isolated city (and, as we Marxists know, socialism in one country is impossible; how could it be possible in one city?). What he praises in the Commune is the invention of political forms that would make possible to the proletariat to exert its class dictatorship over the bourgeoisie; what he is deploring here is the lack of down-to-earth political calculation that would possibly have avoided the all-out massacre of the Communards at the hands of the Versaillese. But those two aspects are unrelated.

Luís Henrique

[Holden Caulfield]

Marx didn't abondon French socialsim as i dont think at this point it exsisted, the commune failed itself in not being full revolutionary in many ways, most obviously the failure to attack Versailles, and the way the leadership did not use the gold reserves in the Paris banks for anything that was useful or productive.

although i don't see why we shouldn't support it, the workers were worker, not all intellectuals, not knowing how to implement socialism,
any break down of power at this time or show of disallusionment with the system was a positive step on the road to socialism,

(to carry on anti-stalinist testament i've kinda had going on today with the 'Stalingrad issue: Stalin abandoned French communists who made up large numbers of the resistance in order to not provoke the allies, to smooth over his aquisition of poland at the Yalta conferance)

[kromando33]

I would encourage a reading of this:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm

[Luís Henrique]

I would encourage a reading of this:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm

Not to say people shouldn't read it, but what has it to do with the subject in discussion?

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think this should not be misread. It is not the case that Marx was a Hegelian, Ricardian French socialist. His theories are based in a thorough critique of those "three sources" - and, just like his method is, according to him "the exact opposite of Hegel's", and his conclusions in Das Kapital are completely opposed to the classical economists, his positions towards Babeuf and Blanqui are by no means that of a faithful follower.

So what was the point of Kautsky and Lenin writing their respective works on the "three sources"? :confused:

[INDK]

Marx didn't abondon French socialsim as i dont think at this point it exsisted, the commune failed itself in not being full revolutionary in many ways, most obviously the failure to attack Versailles, and the way the leadership did not use the gold reserves in the Paris banks for anything that was useful or productive.

Well, first of all, just because Socialism didn't prevail doesn't mean there wasn't a large Socialist presence in France during Marx's period of analyzing the group. I don't really think Marx actually abandoned French Socialism really, perhaps he stopped writing about it as extensively as previously... but we all take interest to something that fades slowly. Moreover, the Paris Commune did fail and French Socialism did eventually lower the hype, but this was a bit after Marx's "abandonment" of analyzing French socialists. I don't think we should either, I mean, Engels has said it... "Let us look at the Paris Commune. That, my friends, was the dictatorship of the proletariat." Apparently, the Paris Commune was a shining example of Marxist methods, which I do agree it was. I don't really think anyone abandoned the French socialist movement, other than the French socialists, perhaps... we can still take their ideas, experiences, and mistakes in stride and use the Paris Commune's positive aspects to our advantage and its mistakes to make in us new and lasting strength.

[kromando33]

The argument that 'socialism in one city didn't work, so it can't work in one country' against the Paris Commune is a fundamentally unsound position, for a number of reasons. Marxism is practical and pragmatic when it comes to class struggle and revolution, Lenin worked on this by envisaging the vanguard party so that the proletariat could be organized most efficiently and coordinated best against the bourgeois state. Mao added on in the 'Three Worlds Theory' but drawing a line between the differing material conditions of the different worlds and that revolutions could be organized differently for every country depending on circumstances. For anyone who has read Mao, you will be surprised with the ingenuity and practicality of it, Mao analyzes problems and makes solutions to class struggle.

The reason I said that is because Marxist is practical, Marx didn't just theoretically point out that communism is a superior society, he put forward practical means for implementing it, revolution - class struggle etc. Stalin also was very practical if you read his work, especially on class struggle and the 'National Question'.

All true Marxists recognize that the 'nation' and 'state' are reactionary institutions, but in socialism EVERYTHING is imperfect and contradictory, the difference being that socialism sets out a praxis (process) by which this material reality is changed, and those contradictions are weeded out of society. The 'nation' therefore can be used in a 'utilitarian' way, so that the proletariat control it, so it protects their interests just as it protected the bourgeois ones, and just as the bourgeois did it can be used to repress your class enemy, so the proletariat can use the state 'utilitarianly' to repress the bourgeois and build socialism.

Thus in the case of the Paris Commune 'socialism in one city' wouldn't work because France was a country, and so the bourgeois state would naturally crush this one city. But if the proletariat controlled the entire country, then the modern bourgeois international functions of sovereignty, international laws, borders etc, would protect that state.

[Hit The North]

So what was the point of Kautsky and Lenin writing their respective works on the "three sources"? :confused:

The point was to trace the theoretical traditions of bourgeois society upon which Marx based his analysis of capitalism and to emphasize how a critique of these components led to their transcendence in Marxism.

As Luis alludes, Marx didn't merely abandon French socialism, German idealism and British political economy, he transformed them.

I think the intentions of Kautsky and Lenin was to both clarify the components of Marxist analysis and to demonstrate their superiority to their bourgeois counterparts.

[Forward Union]

Well, after the fall of the commune the large trail of Refugees who didn't feel safe living there formally supported Bakunin and the Jura Federation in the 1st international. Which goesa long way toward understandign the nature of the Paris Commune.

There's evidence of this in the miniutes.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/index.htm

[Dimentio]

You seem to got a problem with your posting.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As Luis alludes, Marx didn't merely abandon French socialism

So what, then, are the differences between French socialism and Russian socialism, besides the former's idealist approach and the latter's more populist approach (which Lenin critiqued and "transformed")?

You've got a PM on this subject of the "sources and components" of modern scientific socialism. ;)

[Vanguard1917]

Marx never embraced 'French socialism' - he subjected it to critique and exposed its flaws. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did the same with the Russian populists. And, of course, the non- and pre-Marxist socialists of both France and Russia have far more in common with one another than they do with the proletarian socialism upheld by Marxism.

[Holden Caulfield]

have far more in common with one another than they do with the proletarian socialism upheld by Marxism.

are you getting at nihilism? and their bourgosie nature?

[kromando33]

Well, just look to the 'Eurocommunist' parties in France today, totally revisionist, totally useless, they have so completely conformed to the bourgeois state that they seem now (along with the unions) to be an integral part of the bourgeois state, they even tend to lend a air of respectability to class oppression, kinda like how they have food at a titty bar, it makes it seem like workers have someone in govt on their side, when in fact they don't. States can only serve one class or the other.

[Holden Caulfield]

yeah it's the same in England with trade union support of the labour party and such, i am following now,

cheers

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, just look to the 'Eurocommunist' parties in France today, totally revisionist, totally useless, they have so completely conformed to the bourgeois state that they seem now (along with the unions) to be an integral part of the bourgeois state, they even tend to lend a air of respectability to class oppression, kinda like how they have food at a titty bar, it makes it seem like workers have someone in govt on their side, when in fact they don't. States can only serve one class or the other.

I would also critique the "French socialism" of Marx's time further because of its legacy in France. I don't recall any notable 20th-century French Marxists. :(

At best, there was Ho Chi Minh, who helped found the French Communist Party.

[Hit The North]

Frantz Fannon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz_Fanon

http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/fanon/index.htm

[gilhyle]

I havent gone back to Lenin's three soures and component article, where I think there is something written about the meaning of this idea, but it is not hard to grasp what Marx Lenin and Kautsky are on about. At the level of personal autobiography, it was the move to Paris that put Marx in contact with the communist sects - this greatly impressed him as it had greatly impressed Heinrich Heine before him: Heine's book (cant remember the name) is a very good account of what French socialism meant at that time. It was a heady mix of political conspirators organising against a background of the Lyon strike, the organisation of labour, the incapacity of a major power to organise representatives to act on their part in government and repeated popular uprisings.

Take a step back, what does this refer to ? It refers to the 'permanent revolution' idea: Marx's version of this. In other words the the reference to French socalism is a reference to disciplined organisation to push forward to fill the gaps left by the weaknesses of the bourgeois class.