The Rule of the Commune
The Commune itself was an organization which was created through a union between a number of different radical organizations, each looking to put some sense of themselves into the new government. For a time, they succeeded in that quest.
The CommuneÕs Identity Crisis
Unfortunately
for the Communards, after the Commune took power, no one was actually sure what
the new government was. There was no set platform, no specific goals, and no
definition as to what exactly this new government would do and how it would
rule. The Commune, more than anything else, was a government that was created
in order to be the opposite of everything the Parisians had put up with in the
last ninety years. Since 1789, the Parisians had known just about every type of
government, from tyrannical dictator (Robespierre) to Emperor (Napoleon) to a
full fledged Republic, and each of them had failed in turn. The Communards
wanted the Commune to be something new and different, which was a government
for the working class instead of for the aristocracy or bourgeois. As a result,
the Commune was Ņlittle more than a slogan with no platform.Ó[1] There
were, however, a large number of different parties that had influence in the new
Commune.
The
inherent difficulties in a coalition government were even more pronounced in
the Paris Commune. The political groups couldnÕt agree over who should chair
the discussions, much less what should be done about General Trochu and President
Thiers, the current leaders of the French government who were holed up just outside of town in Versailles. Their
discussions were always constrained by the fact that the Prussian army had
never quite gone away, but were camped nearby to Versaille. Unsure what
response Prussia would give to a military strike against Versailles, they
decided not to risk such a strike.
By
the time they decided to do nothing, a day had gone. The second day under the
Commune was marked by the development of numerous committees to split up the
authority and responsibility of the government. They founded the executive
committee of the Commune, which held no executive power other than itÕs name.
The existence of the Comitˇ Centrale and the National Guard
constrained the powers of each of the new committees.
The
Failures of the Commune
The
incompetence of many of the men in positions of authority in the Commune caused
several serious lapses in judgment which contributed to itÕs eventual fall. One
of these incompetents was Charles Beslay, who had been given the position of
chair of the commune the first day. Beslay was told to go the Bank of France
and seize itÕs assets. When he arrived, he decided that rather than to confront
the four hundred some armed clerks, it would be smarter to acquire the required
funds through loans. This ended in failure, as the head of the bank, the
Marquis de Ploeuc, smuggled money out to Versailles and Beslay never did get
the money he needed to keep the Commune financially secure.
Curiously
enough, when it became clear that the executive arrangement was not working as
intended, the Commune government founded a new executive body, which they named
the Committee of Public Safety, bringing back memories of RobespierreÕs Reign
or Terror from after the first French Revolution, shortly before the First
Empire. The head of this new body was Raoul Rigault, who was a radical
even by the standards of his fellows. Rigault was responsible for the creation
of a government setup remarkably similar to that of Robespierre. Rigault is
especially remembered for being an staunch atheist and a particular
conversation he had with a Jesuit priest.
Rigault: What is your profession?
Priest: Servant of God.
Rigault: Where does your master live?
Priest: Everywhere.
Rigault (to a clerk): Take this down: X, describing himself servant of one called God, a vagrant.[2]
 |
Raoul Rigault |
At
the same time, Thiers was preparing for a second siege of Paris. He had
acquired permission from Otto von Bismarck, who remained in command of
the Prussian forces, to increase the size of his army to 130,000 men. His
second siege took place as the Commune continued to issue large numbers of
edicts. The defense of the Commune ended the same way as the founding: in a
time of great confusion. ThiersÕ forces had been pounding away with artillery
at the Point du Jour Gate for several days. Atop the Gate was a white flag,
which was a signal to ThiersÕ army to begin an assault at that point. For
reasons unknown, the National Guard had abandoned the Gate and left it
completely undefended. On May 13, the regular army broke through that gate and
into the city of Paris completely unopposed, not having to face the some
thousand artillery pieces at the command of the defenders and outnumbering them
by more than three to one. Combat was short and furious, and the Versailles
army encountered little resistance until they reached the H™tel de Ville. Even
then, the incompetence of the National Guard prevented an adequate defense of
the city. The defenders seemed to dissolve into the night as the fight proved
hopeless. One of the only divisions which remained to continue the fight was a
WomenÕs Brigade let by Louise Michel, the Rouge Vierge. By the time the fight
was through, much of Paris had been burned to the ground. As the fighting
degenerated, the remaining leader of the Communards, Delescluze, lost
control of his subordinates, including the violent Rigault. Hostages were
executed by the maniac leader, including the Archbishob of Paris. Rigault was
executed shortly thereafter by the invading forces. Delescluze himself was
killed shortly afterwards during the fighting, standing atop a barricade and
waiting for the fatal shot.
The
Collapse of the Commune
The
collapse of the Commune was a result of a number of factors, but several were
more important in the end than others. First was the basic contradictions
between the political leaders of the Commune. The hours spent arguing between
leaders cost them precious time that their opponents in Versailles were not
wasting in the same way. The decision not to invade Versailles before the
legitimate government could reestablish a military presence cost them the
conflict. Secondly, the mistakes made when handling the national bank and
refusing to seize all the assets allowed the Versaille government to have a
steady flow of income which they used to maintain their support. Karl Marx and Lenin
both studied the Commune in depth, learning each of the mistakes that it made. Lenin
was careful not to repeat any of them when he started his own revolution. In
many ways, the Commune was a trial run for LeninÕs revolution in Russia, as
each had similar beginnings in a failed military conflict and a distrusted
government.
Several other philosophical leaders outside of Communism also wrote articles about the Paris Commune and what it meant for the spread of their indivudual ideologies. One of these was Peter Kropotkin, whose work discussed the rise, fall, and effect of the Commune on anarchism in Europe.