The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 13, 1926, Page 8

LESSONS OF THE PARIS COMMUNE. {Continued from page 1) the permanent threat to its rights, of the absolute refusal of its legitimate aspirations, and of the ruin of the country and all its hopes, understood that it was its imperative duty and absolute right to take its destiny into its own hands and ensure victory by seizing power.” In form the Commune was a dictatorship, notwithstanding its superficial aspect of democracy. True, a general election was held, but this was after the rich bourgeoisie had either fled to Versailles, or gone into hiding and was, for all practical purposes, disfranchised. The Commune showed clearly as much in its failure as in its success, that a dictatorship is necessary to de- stroy the opposition of the bourgeoisie. How long this transi- tional period of dictaforship would have to last was not fully appreciated by-Marx or Engels, or by Lenin. The experience of 1871 was too limited to indicate. It required the experience of the Russian Revolution to show that the dictatorship of the pro- letariat is, indeed, an entire epoch. : IL. HE lessons of the Commune of Paris fall naturally into two main categories, the general, the tactical. The most im- portant general lessons have already been referred to. Others that must be mentioned are the following: a. The Commune, like every great revolutionary upheaval, showed more clearly than before the essentially repressive feat- ure of the state, as well as its class basis. It is precisely this that makes it necessary to break up the bourgeois state, to “shatter it” as Marx says, before a proletarian rule can be es- tablished. b. The Commune revealed the inner rottenness of bour- geois nationalism. Prussians and Versaillese, who a few weeks before had been facing each other on the battlefield, co-operated freely in the struggle against the Parisian proletariat. The Com- mune in its turn was international in its outlook. Not only did it admit foreigners to citizenship, some of them (as for instance Leo Frankel) being active Communards, but it proclaimed the universal fraternity of all labor and spoke in the name of the “Universal Republic.” c. The Commune showed that, with the development of an independent working class, every bourgeois revolution places immediately upon the agenda the question of the proletarian revolution. This had already been faintly indicated in the struggles of 1848-50, especially during the February and July days when the independent demands of the working class were really the central point at issue. In 1871 the fall of Napoleon Ifl found the rich bourgeoisie unable to stabilize its own revo- lution thru fear of the proletariat, which thereupon seized power. In a much more conclusive way this lesson is confirmed by the more recent revolutions in Russia, Germany, Austria and Hungary. Who can doubt that the Japanese revolution, when it comes, will reveal the same phenomenon? d. “The Commune taught the workers to consider con- cretely the problems of revolution.” This is Lenin’s phrase, and his own work is sufficient commentary upon it. In glancing even briefly at some of the tactical lessons of 1871, we get a closer view of the historic uprising of the Com- munards. Tactics are not something apart from the medium in which they are applied; they are limited by and conditioned upon it. One readily recognizes that the mistakes made by the Com- mune may be explained by the conditions in which it developed, by the elementary stage of the evolution of productive forces, by the political immaturity of the proletariat as a class, the great lack of separate proletarian traditions, etc. Neverthe- less, it would be foolish for a revolutionary party today to re- fuse to learn from those mistakes. Not to look at the Commune critically, to praise indiscriminately the good and the bad after the manner of religious enthusiasts, would be to spurn the greater part of our precious heritage of revolutionary experi- ence. The accomplishments and failings of the Paris Commune teach us the following: 2 olution (involving the movement of real masses) places before the proletariat the problem of revo- sdutionary alliance. Only because of the united front between the Parisian workers*and a considerable section of the bour- geoisie was the Commune possible. This does not mean that the social composition of the Commune of 1871 was a correct pattern. Far from it. The workers dominated the alliance of all revolutionary elements but they were incapable, under the conditions prevailing, of securing unquestioned and complete control. Some of the reasons are given below. However, the Commune did show the importance of allies for the proletariat. b. A not inconsiderable section of the lower middle class will follow the revolutionary lead of the workers. This was; definitely proved by the experience of the Commune. It is séarcely necessary to add that such support will be much smaller c. The Commune made the mistake of underestimating the importance of a union with the peasantry, altho as Lenin reminds us it was making its way toward such a union. ‘This. ke was fatal in a country with a predominantly peasant population. Ephemeral revolutionary “communes” sprang up in some of the other cities of France but nevertheless Paris re- mained virtually isolated. The experience of the Hungarian ance of winning over the peasantry. The Bolshevik Party of Russia, under the leadership of Lenin, avoided the mistake made by the Hungarian comrades. Soviet Russia is a workers’ and peasants’ republic and the alliance with the peasantry is one of the foundation stones for the success of the first lasting pro- letarian dictatorship. d. It is not only to shatter the bourgeois state it with the workers’ state—the pro- "=" a. Any “people’s’’ under-present conditions than in the Paris of 1871. workers’ republic, in our own time, also shows us the import- apparatus but to letarian dictatorship. The Communards did break up the old machinery of bourgeois rule more or less effectively: They abol- ished the standing army and replaced it by the nation in arms, and they struck powerful blows against the burocracy by abol- ishing parliamentarism (in the sense of the old “talking shops’’) and by the decree lowering the pay of all state servants to the level of workmen’s wages. But they failed to organize in a firm and centralized way the state powers of the workers. The state apparatus was loosely knit, under no uniform control and fre- quently in chaos. The basis of this defect, which cost the Com- mune dear, was that altho the Commune was in fact a dictator- ship it was not a conscious dictatorship. Comrade Trotsky points out in his book on Dictatorship vg Democracy that the central committee.of the National Guard, which was the sole governor of Paris in the early days, neglected to order an im- mediate march on Versailles because of the impossibility of hold- ing elections with the flower of the proletariat out of the city. “The central cammittee,” says Trotsky, “appointed March 22 as the day of elections for the Commune; but, not sure of itself, frightened at its own illegality, striving to act in unison with more ‘legal’ institutions, entered into ridiculous and end- less negotiations with a quite helpless assembly of mayors and deputies of Paris, showing its readiness to divide power with them if only an agreement could be arrived at. Meanwhile preci- ous time was slipping by.” e. The Commune did not show sufficient energy and firm- ness in dealing with its internal as well as external foes. This mistake, in the failure to organize a satisfactory apparatus, was due to the fact that it was not a conscious dictatorship. The bourgeoisie; meantime was steadily at work preparing the down- fall of the Commune. Events themselves finally forced the Com- mune to take its stand in principle on the path of intimidation, “The creation of the Committee of Public Safety,” says Trotsky, “was dictated, in the case of many of its supporters, by the Red Terror.” The committee was appointed “to cut off the heads of traitors” and “to avenge treachery.” To stop the murder of prisoners by the Versailles, a decree was-fassed that for every prisoner murdered three hostages would be shot from among the anti-Communards remaining in Paris. The decree was not carried out. No prisoner or unarmed man was killed by the Communards thruout the siege from April 2 to May 23. f. Most of all the Commune showed the need of a con- sistent revolutionary theory embodied in a strong, centralized, disciplined leading organization—the party of the proletariat. Insufficiency of leadership and program was the outstanding weakness of the Commune. The virtues and defects of Blan- quism were plainly revealed. On the one hand it was shown what an important role can be played by a disciplined “militant minority” and on the other hand it was proved that this mili- tant minority must have its roots deep in the masses of the working class, that it must be a party equipped with revolution- ary science) that it must know the road along which it is to, travel. j}/ a mI. e beginning of the p resent article I stated that the gentle- manly leaders of the Second International had devoted very little attention to the Paris Commune of 1871. In English, if we except Marx’s Civil War in France, Engels’ commentaries and the writings*of Lenin and Trotsky, the only works worthy of consideration are Lissagaray’s History of the. Commune of 1871, Belfort Bax’s History of the Paris Commune and the in- teresting but often misleading researches of Postgate. It is en- tirely characteristic of Kautsky, who, as Lenin pointed out, had neglected the Paris Commune, did begin to write about it in 1919, not to draw revolutionary lessons from it, but to attack Soviet Russia, In contrasting the Soviet regime with the Com- mune, Kautsky passes hurriedly over the virtues of the Com- munards in order to praise them for their shortcomings, which pg ty does not find exemplified in the wickedly successful Bol- she § No! Our Russian comrades learned well the lessons of 1871. They fortified themselves in the revolutionary traditions of the Commune, but they did not repeat its mistakes as Kautsky hints they should have done. And while the Paris of the Com- mune was overthrown after scarcely two months of life, the Soviet power is already in its ninth year and is more firmly es- tablished than ever, which is the whole source of Kautsky’s abiding woe. : Despite the defeats that are inevitable along the road, turn- ing the experiences of its defeats into lessons for future vic- tories, the proletariat of all countries advances towards its eman- cipation. “The Soviet power,” said Lenin, “is the second step of the world revolution, the development of the dictatorship of the proletariat, The Paris Commune is the first step.” To France of the Commune RALPH CHAPLIN. _ MOTHER of revolutions, stern and sweet, Thou of the Red Commune’s heroic days; Unsheathe thy sword, let thy pent lightning blaze, Until these new bastiles fall at thy feet. - Once more thy sons march down the ancient street, ‘Led by pale men from silent Pere Lachaise; Once more La Carmagnole—La Marseillaise Blend with the war drum’s quick and angry beat. Ah, France—our France—must, they again endure The crown of thorns upon the cross of gold? Is morning here,, , ? Then speak that we may know! The sky seems lighter but we are not sure. Is morning here. ., ? The whole world holds its breath To hear the crimson Gallic rooster crow!