1871 Paris Commune’s Causes and Impacts

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Build-Up and Causes of the Paris Commune
Period of Governance
Downfall of the Paris Commune
Discussion and Impacts
Conclusion
Bibliography
Footnotes

Introduction

In early 1870s, France as a society was in turmoil and political disarray as the Second French Empire collapsed resulting in the rise of the Third Republic and the country was engaged in the Franco-Prussian War and internal fighting.¹ The 1871 Paris Commune is a key event in French revolutionary history that defined the history of the Republic, social attitudes, and governance principles such as the separation of church and state. Driven by arising political ideologies of Marxism and anarchism, the 1871 Paris Commune was a revolutionary movement advocated giving power and voice to the people.² However, it failed on many levels and showed signs of mismanagement, succumbing to the Third Republic military. Nevertheless, it served a critical role in establishing lessons and outcomes for revolutionary justice and public freedoms that guided future movements and French society.³ The Paris Commune was a revolutionary temporary government in France in the spring of 1871 which was meant to address vital social concerns and create a democratic process in the country in the opposition of the Third Republic government, but the Commune was unable to respond to the challenges and led to increased turmoil and violence in the city resulting in its downfall.

Build-Up and Causes of the Paris Commune

Since the French Revolution in 1789, the French society was experiencing a continuous state of political evolution. Assuming that no revolution could occur without a proletarian involvement, workers and people of the Republic had their demands. However, there was a clear antagonism between the new class of capitalists and bourgeoisie with workers. The newly risen “social” republic had a crisis of policy and leadership. Eventually the bourgeoisie began to enact detrimental policies such as disarming workers and defeating any small insurrections. However, the political climate was one that demonstrated that the bourgeoisie could not fully rule France and Paris, while the proletariat did not yet have the hold on power necessary to achieve a revolution.⁴

The political ruling elite was rampant with corruption and despotism, resulting in the concentration of power. As a result, this led to infighting, as stated by general Giuseppe Garibaldi that the posts of the commandment of the Paris National Guard (leftists which ultimately initiated the revolution and the Commune) and a commandant of the army could not be combined. Many of France’s influential figures such as Garibaldi, Victor Hug, Louis Blanc, Edgar Quinet, and other figures including in the military believed that change was necessary driven by radical democracy. As Garibaldi stated, that France needed to find its Washington (a likely reference to George Washington of Revolutionary America) as a leadership figure in order to raise itself from the wreckage.⁵

During the revolutionary period of the nineteenth century, there was a universal support for communality which permeated society and politics including social organization of workers in associations and universal suffrage, which was later supported by the Commune. At the same time, the end of the Second Empire in France in the 1860’s saw increasing economic inequality despite industrial growth and expanded trade. The ruling elite marked this period with extravagant spending and the wealthy continued to become wealthier. Meanwhile, Paris expanded at unprecedented rates, drawing in almost 15 million people, many of them workers to drive the rapidly growing industry in the city.⁶ Therefore, effectively there was dissonance between societal and political attitudes in post-Revolutionary France that over a period of several decades leading up to 1871. This had a profound impact on a growing schism between the ruling elite in Paris and the working class driven by a need for democratic changes, albeit without a clear direction.

By 1870 France was involved in the Franco-Prussian war which was disastrous for the country and Paris. The Prussians blockaded and sieged the city, starving Parisians into capitulation by January of 1871. By that time, conditions in the city greatly deteriorated and most of the ruling and business elite left the city, while the rest continued to take resources from dwindling reserves during the blockade. The Commune began with a peaceful resistance to the national military led by Adolphe Thiers which marched on Paris on March 18, 1871 with the intent of seizing 200 canons from the Parisian National Guard. However, a crowd of people including women and children stood to protect the artillery, demonstrating an instance of solidarity against the state military. With many soldiers deserting to join the Parisians, Thiers withdrew the army to Versailles. This allowed for the radicals and revolutionaries to establish the Commune government as the official ruling body of Paris by March 26, 1871, where Parisians had a chance to vote.⁷

The Parisian society joined together to form the Commune as the opposition to the conservative national government. The people felt betrayed by the government in the Franco-Prussian war as well as the decades of income inequality perpetuated by the exploitation of labor. Therefore, the Commune and the rebellion which sparked it was meant to be a fully citizen’s government, one of the first working-class revolts in history. The Commune government consisted of various political and social backgrounds including revolutionary liberals seeking freedom, socialists focused on reforms, and radicals wanting an armed revolution.⁸ Although this diversity of views potentially led to the disorganization that led to the demise of the Commune, it was also a critical factor in bringing Parisians together against what they viewed was the common enemy, a national government which did not have the people’s interests in mind. Therefore, the Commune was a true revolution as it brought changes in status quo not only at the governmental level, which lasted briefly, but societal shifts as well.

Period of Governance

Shortly after coming into power, the Paris Commune published its manifesto which outlined its purpose, objectives, and values. It sought to reiterate the unity of Paris of standing for its people’s interests and call for calm in this period of tension with the national government. Furthermore, the manifesto emphasized that the Commune opposes the conventional means of governance of the governmental and clerical status quo which supported militarism, speculation, exploitation of workers, and privilege of the proletariat. The Commune was a popular initiative which ushers a new era of experimental and positive politics.⁹

Initially, the Commune governance was highly successful, led by 10 Commissions formed for the provisional life in the city. Two major social changes were implemented including elimination of the police force and improving living conditions in Paris. By disbanding the police and leaving largely volunteer law enforcement units, the Commune eliminated an institution which often protected the bourgeois activities as well as challenged the conception that without police crime would become rampant. However, the crime rate virtually disappeared in Paris during the Commune’s rule. Furthermore, the quality of life in the city greatly improved as workers and communities took control of the neighborhood conditions including cleanliness and trash disposal. It was a direct contradiction to bourgeois propaganda that self-governance would deteriorate into mob disorder and filth. The most important commission was the Finance commission which organized financing for the commune, including payments to the National Guard that numbered approximately 400,000 and regulated salaries to government officials and spending on social services.¹⁰

After the Commune came into power, it organized democratic election of councilors which were designated to rule the city, which came from various social backgrounds including workers, businessmen, journalists, and scholars. It was the attempt to set up a socialist democratic government and society, focused on distributing existing power and disrupting hierarchies that created privilege. The council determined that the Commune would have no singular leader, but there were certain leadership figures such as Joseph Proudhon and Louis August Blanqui who were inspired and belonged to the First International founded by Karl Marx, thus why the Commune government had so many socialist ideologies in its values and policies. The Commune sought to create equality and disrupted both religious and economic power hierarchies. Policies such as the death penalty and military conscription were aborted. Meanwhile a number of rules were established that prohibited exploitation of labor by businesses.¹¹

Religion and Christianity specifically which was the dominant religion in France was not accepted by the Commune government that had its basis in the socialist Marxist roots. It was a primary prerogative for the Commune to separate church and state through actions such as adopting a secular Republic calendar and removing religion from schools and public events.¹² During this period many churches experienced closures if they did not support the socialist political agenda while clergy such as the Catholic archbishop of Paris Georges Darboy were arrested on crimes of treason. The Catholic church was accused of complicity with crimes against the people by supporting the monarchy and the National Guard and radical newsprint often highly abused their power against religious organizations and clergy.¹³

There were concrete limitations in governance and politics which ultimately led to the failure of the Commune after just two months. First, the nature of the revolution was not effective since the majority of the ruling elite left Paris during the Franco-Prussian war. Therefore, unlike previous revolutions or urban revolts that led to the usurpation of government, the Paris Commune lacked that leverage. It lacked the popular support of the country which largely supported the national government. Furthermore, the Commune lacked the military power, financing, or technological capabilities to withstand against the army led by Thiers. Another governance aspect which became more evident and detrimental with time was radicalization. The Commune could not agree on whether to focus on military fighting with the army or its socialist policies. A level of radicalization and mistrust occurred in the Commune as the government sought to make enemies from clergy, business owners, and others who did not fit their socialist agenda, ending up taking hostages towards the end of the Commune’s rule. In its reforms, the Commune began to decimate much investment and infrastructure on which the middle class depended on. This further detracted supporters, both from the public as well as political figures, even the Prussians who were given Paris in the surrender terms of the war, did not wish for the anarchical government that the Commune had become.¹⁴

The Commune was unable to respond to the challenges facing the French society and expectations that the people had of the revolutionary government they supported. This was further exacerbated by the diverse political composition of the Commune which did not allow it to form a strong leadership and became a considerable limitation in policymaking.¹⁵ Measures undertaken by the Commune committees were focused on the needs and demands of local laborers and could not apply to the entirety of the Parisian population or the country where various cities’ communes supported the national government. A lack of coordination, strong leadership, experience, and homogeneity among the Commune members and governance process led to its demise.

Downfall of the Paris Commune

Social turmoil was plaguing the Commune and the Parisian population. The Commune leadership became increasingly paranoid and radicalized, attempting to exert further control over Paris as well as engage in futile retaliations and provocations against the National Army. Anarchy and division began to take place, quickly replacing the values of stability and cooperation that were previously central to the Commune. In combination with different ideologies and influences affecting the Commune and its policies, this was reflective on the public. The Parisians found it difficult to unite behind such spread out leadership that was the principle behind the Commune council, and it became that collapse was imminent.¹⁶ Meanwhile, the French Army took advantage of the numerous strategic and incompetent errors made by the Commune to mount an assault to recapture control of Paris.

As early as April of 1871, the Commune leadership along with the National Guard sought to capture Versailles nearby Paris where the French National Army was based. The Commune hoped for the repetition of events in March where the Army refused to fire upon the National Guard. Without proper preparations, the National Guard began a march on Versailles, and soon faced heavy fire leading to retreat. Furthermore, the Army executed any National Guard soldiers caught with a weapon and imprisoned. The Commune sought to retaliate by producing the Decree on Hostages which also imprisoned and executed anyone found to be in support or complicit with the national army or government. This ultimately led to common mistrust and witch hunts as the decree resulted in massive executions and radical lawlessness.¹⁷

The collapse of the Commune came in late May when the French Army began its assault to recapture Paris known as Bloody Week. On May 21, the French Army led by Marshall MacMahon entered the city and began a neighborhood by neighborhood assault. The Commune which based its governance on community self-sustainability could not mount a unified defense as each quartier of Paris defended its own perimeter. By May 22, the Commune issued a city-wide decree calling people to arms, but despite thousands responding including women, they were greatly outnumbered by the Army, and there was little resistance except in some pockets where the National Guard had artillery. At this time, executions of National Guard soldiers and sympathizers began by the Army. On May 23, the Army progressed deeper into the city towards strategic objectives, while the National Guard began to use the scorched earth strategy by burning public buildings, including monarchial symbols such as the Tuileries Palace and part of the Louvre. Within the next few days, the Army gradually took over the city, capturing various contingents of the National Guard. Meanwhile, the Commune seeking out retaliatory measures against the Army began to execute various hostages including military prisoners, and clergy such as Darboy, the Archbishop of Paris.¹⁸

By 28 of May, the Army reached the last stand of the National Guard at Pere-Lachaise cemetery and heavy fighting followed which resulted in the death of the last guardsmen, who were executed even after surrender. In the days and months following, hundreds of prisoners, both National Guard and civilians were executed. Although the number of casualties vary, it has been suggested to be in the range of 6,000-17,000 for the Commune supporters. It was one of the deadliest assaults in Parisian history and revolutions, rightfully labeled a massacre which brought the end of the Commune as the French Army and national government returned to Paris.¹⁹

The Commune experienced an ultimately tragic downfall despite such promising beginnings. Its tortured end was brought down by its self-created conditions, incompetent governance, indecisions due to lack of concrete leadership, and a number of highly controversial and radical decrees it passed. One can argue that the social and political nature of the Commune was unprecedented; therefore, errors were undoubtedly going to be made. Many historians argue that the Commune was ultimately doomed from its origin due to the lack of popular support from the rest of the country and not being able to dispose of the predecessor ruling elite as in other revolutions. Furthermore, literature suggests that a great deal of incoherence and half-measures were wasted by the Parisian rule during the Commune, suggesting aspects of poor governance. While the social and economic emancipation of the worker class was successful to an extent, the Commune made a series of critical errors ranging from not cutting off funding of the Bank of France to the army and not unifying in an attempt to defend the city to lacking the time to establish a competent policy efficient government.

Discussion and Impacts

The Paris Commune of 1871 was in a way a unique political experiment which flourished at the centrifuge of the revolutionary events and had significant impacts on social political theory. Particularly between Bakunin and Marx which engaged in their discourse and highly influential anti-capitalistic and anti-state political theories and movements. The Commune became a contrast between anarchical approach to political domination and economic exploitation of Marx. The Commune was the first of the socialist imaginary which led to the utilitarian collectivist revolutions of the early 20th century. It was also a unique example of association and cooperation of nonalienated labor in a modern European capital, a key aspect in theory of a free commune as a medium where modern socialism could come to fruition.²⁰ Instead of fading away, revolutionaries sought to relatively successfully establish a a new status quo in French politics and society. This was achieved by intellectual experimentation and continuous investment into revolutionary political ideas of equality and solidarity which were adapted to the circumstances and time. Therefore, the Commune was a key event that perpetuated the French “revolutionary tradition” that lacked a fixed parameter or voice but was rather a process of continuous adaptation.²¹

The rise and failure of the Paris Commune is inherently complex, and a deeper study of its objectives and origins is required to draw further conclusions. The revolutionary movement was driven by aspects of equality, democracy, and personal freedoms, but these values became lost in policy and chaos of the time. Historical discussions of the Commune and its significance have a profound importance as well. Socialists view it as a dawn of socialist modernity where revolution becomes critical to establishing the government and ideologies propagated by Marx. Meanwhile, other historians view it as the beginning of European conflicts. Other perspectives praise the Commune’s role in democracy, universal suffrage (including for women), and a moral institution that was crushed by the conservative government. Therefore, the various perspectives on the Commune which justify future events and a leap into some area of political modernism, further demonstrates the ultimate significance of this revolution from a historiography viewpoint.²² As Marx wrote in his narratives that the Commune “with its Commune, will he forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class.”²³

The Paris commune has become a significant part of popular culture in France, adapted into performances such as theatrical staging that gives a unique perspective into the motivations of the revolutionary movement and government interaction with society.²⁴ The Commune being socialist in nature had no concrete leadership. There was Louise Michel, a right-wing militant and staunch feminist representing a forward-thinking nature of the Commune, while Raoul Rigault, the leader of the new police force was a left-wing socialist polemicist which represented the backward-looking aspect. The humanization aspect of the Commune is often missing from academic literature on the topic. The key aspect which unified the Communards was not socialism or economic theory, but a distaste for clericalism and dictatorship, highlighting the anarchical elements of the movement. Furthermore, it is important to consider that the Communards both committed atrocities as well as had them committed against them. It was a campaign of reactionary terror, massacres, and general anarchism.²⁵ However, behind it all were people’s lives which were affected adversely both directly and indirectly, and the Paris Commune with its violent downfall represents a humanistic tragedy for French society.

Conclusion

The Paris Commune of 1871 was a brief revolutionary uprising and temporary government which ruled Paris in defiance of the national government as a socialist and democratic society. It arose as a consequence of numerous social problems and income inequality affecting France in mid-19th century, driven by the ideologies of socialism and democracy mixed with radical anarchism, all aimed at giving power to the people. However, it was short-lived as the disorganized approach to governance as well as ineffective implementation of promised policies lost the widespread support and the Commune quickly succumbed to the armed force of the national government. Despite its briefness, the Paris Commune had a significant impact on French society and political attitudes. It was the final closure to the series of French revolutions, clearly identifying the objectives and type of leadership France needed moving forward. Furthermore, the long-lasting effects on society was defined by the civil resistance, trauma of the massacres, and a new perception of Paris and its people on the function and role of future governments.²⁶ The Paris Commune was a first left-wing socialist revolutions in history, serving as a key practical model of radical and socialist ideologies which became precursors to revolutions around the world in the early 20th century.

Bibliography

Abidor, Mitch, trans. “Decree on the Separation of Church and State” Marxists.org. Web.

“Letter from Garibaldi” Marxists.org. Web.

“Manifesto of the Paris Commune”Marxists.org. Web.

“To France’s Great Cities” Marxists.org. Web.

Brunner, Katie. “Myth and the Paris Commune” Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal 41/42 (2014/2015): 49-66.

Dowing, David B. “The Struggle Between Communality and Hierarchy: Lessons of the Paris Commune for the Twenty-First Century.” Socialism and Democracy 32, no. 2 (2018): 56-86.

Fetridge, William Pembroke. The Rise and Fall of the Paris Commune in 1871; With a Full Account of the Bombardment, Capture, and Burning of the City. Sydney, Australia: WENTWORTH Press, 2016.

Gopnik, Adam. “The Fires of Paris”The New Yorker, 2014. Web.

Marx, Karl. The Civil War in France. Edited and translated by Mark Harris. Web.

McGray, Robert. “Karl Marx and the Paris Commune of 1871: Tracing Traditions of Critical Pedagogy.” International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology 5, no. 2 (2014): 1-14.

Merriman, John. Massacre: The Life and Death of the Paris Commune. London, England: Yale University Press, 2014.

“The Spectre of the Commune and French Anarchism in the 1890s.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, edited by Carl Levy and Matthew S. Adams, 343-352. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Milza, Pierre. L’année terrible: La Commune (mars–juin 1871). Paris: Perrin, 2019.

Nicholls, Julia. Revolutionary Thought after the Paris Commune, 1871-1885. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Piotrovsky, Adrian. “The Paris Commune: A Staging.” Translated by Daniel C. Gerould. Journal of Performance and Art 37, no. 2 (2015): 93-102.

Ross, Kristin. “The Paris Commune and the Literature of the North.” Critical Inquiry 41, no. 2 (2015): 269-288.

Saba, Paul. “The Paris Commune: First Proletarian Dictatorship”Revolution 3, no. 6 (1978). Web.

Tombs, Robert. The Paris Commune 1871. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014.

Footnotes

Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, edited and translated by Mark Harris. Web.
Mitch Abidor, trans, “Decree on the Separation of Church and State”Marxists.org. Web.
Katie Brunner, “Myth and the Paris Commune,” Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal 41/42 (2014/2015): 49.
Mitch Abidor, trans, “Letter from Garibaldi”Marxists.org. Web.
David B. Dowing,“The Struggle Between Communality and Hierarchy: Lessons of the Paris Commune for the Twenty-First Century,” Socialism and Democracy 32, no. 2 (2018): 61.
David B. Dowing,“The Struggle Between Communality and Hierarchy: Lessons of the Paris Commune for the Twenty-First Century,” Socialism and Democracy 32, no. 2 (2018): 65.
Paul Saba, “The Paris Commune: First Proletarian Dictatorship” Revolution 3, no. 6 (1978). Web.
Mitch Abidor, trans, “Manifesto of the Paris Commune”Marxists.org. Web.
David B. Dowing,“The Struggle Between Communality and Hierarchy: Lessons of the Paris Commune for the Twenty-First Century,” Socialism and Democracy 32, no. 2 (2018): 66.
Robert McGray, “Karl Marx and the Paris Commune of 1871: Tracing Traditions of Critical Pedagogy,” International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology 5, no. 2 (2014): 3.
Mitch Abidor, trans, “Decree on the Separation of Church and State”Marxists.org. Web.
Pierre Milza, L’année Terrible: La Commune (Mars–Juin 1871). (Paris: Perrin, 2019), 56.
Mitch Abidor, trans, “To France’s Great Cities”Marxists.org. Web.
John Merriman, Massacre: The Life and Death of the Paris Commune, (London, England: Yale University Press, 2014), 73.
John Merriman, “The Spectre of the Commune and French Anarchism in the 1890s,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, edited by Carl Levy and Matthew S. Adams (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 343.
William Pembroke Fetridge, The Rise and Fall of the Paris Commune in 1871; With a Full Account of the Bombardment, Capture, and Burning of the City, (Sydney, Australia: WENTWORTH Press, 2016), 105.
Fetridge, 281
John Merriman, Massacre: The Life and Death of the Paris Commune (London, England: Yale University Press, 2014), 140.
Kristin Ross, “The Paris Commune and the Literature of the North.” Critical Inquiry 41, no. 2 (2015): 287.
Julia Nicholls, Revolutionary Thought after the Paris Commune, 1871-1885 (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 1.
Julia Nicholls, Revolutionary Thought after the Paris Commune, 1871-1885 (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 18.
Adrian Piotrovsky,“The Paris Commune: A Staging,” translated by Daniel C. Gerould. Journal of Performance and Art 37, no. 2 (2015): 93.
Adam Gopnik, “The Fires of Paris” The New Yorker, 2014. Web.
Robert Tombs, The Paris Commune 1871 (New York, NY: Routledge, 2014).

Click Here To Order Now!