I did not anticipate that I would be asked to prepare a new edition of the
Address of the General Council of the International on The Civil War in
France, and to write an introduction to it. Therefore I can only touch
briefly here on the most important points.

I am prefacing the longer work mentioned above by the two shorter
addresses of the General Council on the Franco-Prussian War. [Chapter 1 and Chapter 2] In the first place, because the second
of these, which itself cannot be fully understood without the first, is
referred to in The Civil War. But also because these two Addresses,
likewise drafted by Marx, are, no less than The Civil War,
outstanding examples of the author’s remarkable gift, first proved in
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte, for grasping clearly the character, the import, and the
necessary consequences of great historical events, at a time when these
events are still in process before our eyes, or have only just taken place.
And, finally, because we in Germany are still having to endure the
consequences which Marx prophesied would follow from these events.

Has that which was declared in the first Address not come to pass: that if
Germany’s defensive war against Louis Bonaparte degenerated into a war
of conquest against the French people, all the misfortunes which befell
Germany after the so-called wars of liberation[B] would revive again with renewed intensity?
Have we not had a further 20 years of Bismarck’s government, the Exceptional
Law and the anti-socialist campaign taking the place of the prosecutions
of demagogues,[C] with
the same arbitrary police measures and with literally the same staggering
interpretations of the law?

And has not the prophecy been proved to the
letter that the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine would "force France into the
arms of Russia," and that after this annexation Germany must either become
the avowed tool of Russia, or must, after some short respite, arm for a new
war, and, moreover, "a race war against the combined Slavonic and Roman
races"? Has not the annexation of the French provinces driven France into the
arms of Russia? Has not Bismarck for fully 20 years vainly wooed the favor of
the tsar, wooed it with services even more lowly than those which little
Prussia, before it became the "first power in Europe," was wont to lay at
Holy Russia’s feet? And is there not every day hanging over our heads
the Damocles’ sword of war, on the first day of which all the chartered
covenants of princes will be scattered like chaff; a war of which nothing is
certain but the absolute uncertainty of its outcome; a race war which will
subject the whole of Europe to devastation by 15 or 20 million armed men, and
is only not already raging because even the strongest of the great military
states shrinks before the absolute incalculability of its final outcome?

All the more is it our duty to make again accessible to the German workers
these brilliant proofs, now half-forgotten, of the far-sightedness of the
international working class policy in 1870.

What is true of these two Addresses is also true of The Civil War in
France. On May 28, the last fighters of the Commune succumbed to
superior forces on the slopes of Belleville; and only two days later, on May
30, Marx read to the General Council the work in which the historical
significance of the Paris Commune is delineated in short powerful strokes,
but with such clearness, and above all such truth, as has never again been
attained on all the mass of literature which has been written on this
subject.

Thanks to the economic and political development of France since [the French Revolution of]
1789, for 50 years the position of Paris has been such that no revolutions
could break out there without assuming a proletarian character, that is
to say, the proletariat, which had bought victory with its blood,
would advance its own demands after victory. These demands were more or less
unclear and even confused, corresponding to the state of evolution reached
by the workers of Paris at the particular period, but in the last resort
they all amounted to the abolition of the class antagonism between capitalist
and workers. It is true that no one knew how this was to be brought about.
But the demand itself, however indefinite it still was in its formulation,
contained a threat to the existing order of society; the workers who put
it forward were still armed; therefore the disarming of the workers was
the first commandment for the bourgeois at the helm of the state. Hence,
after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with
the defeat of the workers.

This happened for the first time in 1848. The liberal bourgeoisie
of the parliamentary opposition held banquets for securing reform of the
franchise, which was to ensure supremacy for their party. Forced more and
more, in their struggle with the government, to appeal to the people, they
had to allow the radical and republican strata of the bourgeoisie and petty
bourgeoisie gradually to take the lead. But behind these stood the revolutionary
workers, and since 1830,[A] these had acquired far more political independence
than the bourgeoisie, and even the republicans, suspected. At the moment
of the crisis between the government and the opposition, the workers opened
battle on the streets; [King] Louis Philippe vanished, and with him the franchise
reform; and in its place arose the republic, and indeed one which the victorious
workers themselves designated as a “social” republic. No one, however,
was clear as to what this social republic was to imply; not even the workers
themselves. But they now had arms in their hands, and were a power in the
state. Therefore, as soon as the bourgeois republicans in control felt
something like firm ground under their feet, their first aim was to disarm
the workers. This took place by driving them into the insurrection of June
1848 by direct breach of faith, by open defiance and the attempt to banish
the unemployed to a distant province. The government had taken care to
have an overwhelming superiority of force. After five days’ heroic struggle,
the workers were defeated. And then followed a blood-bath of the defenceless
prisoners, the likes of which as not been seen since the days of the civil
wars which ushered in the downfall of the Roman republic. It was the first
time that the bourgeoisie showed to what insane cruelties of revenge it
will be goaded the moment the proletariat dares to take its stand against
them as a separate class, with its own interests and demands. And yet 1848
was only child’s play compared with their frenzy in 1871.

Punishment followed hard at heel. If the proletariat was not yet able to rule France,
the bourgeoisie could no longer do so. At least not at that period, when the greater
part of it was still monarchically inclined, and it was divided into three dynastic
parties [Legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists] and a fourth republican party. Its
internal dissensions allowed the adventurer Louis Bonaparte to take possession of all
the commanding points – army, police, administrative machinery – and, on December 2,
1851,[B] to explode the last stronghold of the bourgeoisie, the National Assembly. The
Second Empire opened the exploitation of France by a gang of political and financial
adventurers, but at the same time also an industrial development such as had never been
possible under the narrow-minded and timorous system of Louis Philippe, with its
exclusive domination by only a small section of the big bourgeoisie. Louis Bonaparte
took the political power from the capitalists under the pretext of protecting them, the
bourgeoisie, from the workers, and on the other hand the workers from them; but in
return his rule encouraged speculation and industrial activity – in a word the rise and
enrichment of the whole bourgeoisie to an extent hitherto unknown. To an even greater
extent, it is true, corruption and mass robbery developed, clustering around the
imperial court, and drawing their heavy percentages from this enrichment.

But the Second Empire was the appeal to the French chauvinism,
the demand for the restoration of the frontiers of the First Empire, which
had been lost in 1814, or at least those of the First Republic.[C] A French
empire within the frontiers of the old monarchy and, in fact, within the
even more amputated frontiers of 1815 – such a thing was impossible for
any long duration of time. Hence the necessity for brief wars and extension
of frontiers. But no extension of frontiers was so dazzling to the imagination
of the French chauvinists as the extension to the German left bank of the
Rhine. One square mile on the Rhine was more to them than ten in the Alps
or anywhere else. Given the Second Empire, the demand for the restoration
to France of the left bank of the Rhine, either all at once or piecemeal,
was merely a question of time. The time came with the Austro-Prussian War
of 1866; cheated of the anticipated “territorial compensation” by Bismarck,
and by his own over-cunning, hesitating policy, there was now nothing left
for Napoleon but war, which broke out in 1870 and drove him first to Sedan,
and then to Wilhelmshohe [prison].

The inevitable result was the Paris Revolution of September 4,
1870. The empire collapsed like a house of cards, and the republic was
again proclaimed. But the enemy was standing at the gates [of Paris]; the armies of
the empire were either hopelessly beleaguered in Metz or held captive in
Germany. In this emergency the people allowed the Paris Deputies to the
former legislative body to constitute themselves into a “Government of
National Defence.” This was the more readily conceded, since, for the purpose
of defence, all Parisians capable of bearing arms had enrolled in the National
Guard and were armed, so that now the workers constituted a great majority.
But almost at once the antagonism between the almost completely bourgeois
government and the armed proletariat broke into open conflict. On October
31, workers’ battalions stormed the town hall, and captured some members
of the government. Treachery, the government’s direct breach of its undertakings,
and the interventions of some petty-bourgeois battalions set them free
again, and in order not to occasion the outbreak of civil war inside a
city which was already beleaguered by a foreign power, the former government
was left in office.

At last on January 28, 1871, Paris, almost starving, capitulated
but with honors unprecedented in the history of war. The forts were surrendered,
the outer wall disarmed, the weapons of the regiments of the line and of
the Mobile Guard were handed over, and they themselves considered prisoners
of war. But the National Guard kept its weapons and guns, and only entered
into an armistice with the victors, who themselves did not dare enter Paris
in triumph. They only dared to occupy a tiny corner of Paris, which, into
the bargain, consisted partly of public parks, and even this they only occupied
for a few days! And during this time they, who had maintained their encirclement
of Paris for 131 days, were themselves encircled by the armed workers of
Paris, who kept a sharp watch that no “Prussian” should overstep the narrow
bounds of the corner ceded to the foreign conquerors. Such was the respect
which the Paris workers inspired in the army before which all the armies
of the empire had laid down their arms; and the Prussian Junkers,
who had come to take revenge at the very centre of the revolution, were
compelled to stand by respectfully, and salute just precisely this armed
revolution!

During the war the Paris workers had confined themselves to demanding
the vigorous prosecution of the fight. But now, when peace had come after
the capitulation of Paris,[D] now, Thiers, the new head of government, was
compelled to realize that the supremacy of the propertied classes – large
landowners and capitalists – was in constant danger so long as the workers
of Paris had arms in their hands. His first action was to attempt to disarm
them. On March 18, he sent troops of the line with orders to rob the National
Guard of the artillery belonging to it, which had been constructed during
the siege of Paris and had been paid for by public subscription. The attempt failed;
Paris mobilized as one man in defence of the guns, and war between Paris
and the French government sitting at Versailles was declared. On March
26 the Paris Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The
Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on
the government, handed in its resignation to the National Guard, after
it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris “Morality Police.”
On March 30 the Commune abolished conscription and the standing army, and
declared that the National Guard, in which all citizens capable of bearing
arms were to be enrolled, was to be the sole armed force. It remitted all
payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April, the
amounts already paid to be reckoned to a future rental period, and stopped
all sales of articles pledged in the municipal pawnshops. On the same day
the foreigners elected to the Commune were confirmed in office, because
“the flag of the Commune is the flag of the World Republic.”

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by
any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves,
might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed
the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state
payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church
property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree
excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers
– in a word, “all that belongs to the sphere of the individual’s conscience”
– was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually
applied. On the 5th, in reply to the shooting, day after day, of the Commune’s fighters captured by the Versailles troops,
a decree was issued for imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried
into effect. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion
of the National Guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing.
On the 12th, the Commune decided that the Victory Column on the Place Vendôme,
which had been cast from guns captured by Napoleon after the war of 1809,
should be demolished as a symbol of chauvinism and incitement to national
hatred. This decree was carried out on May 16. On April 16 the Commune
ordered a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down
by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on
of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be
organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization
of these co-operatives in one great union. On the 20th the Commune abolished
night work for bakers, and also the workers’ registration cards, which
since the Second Empire had been run as a monopoly by police nominees –
exploiters of the first rank; the issuing of these registration cards was
transferred to the mayors of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. On
April 30, the Commune ordered the closing of the pawnshops, on the ground
that they were a private exploitation of labor, and were in contradiction
with the right of the workers to their instruments of labor and to credit.
On May 5 it ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had
been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.

Thus, from March 18 onwards the class character of the Paris movement,
which had previously been pushed into the background by the fight against
the foreign invaders, emerged sharply and clearly. As almost without exception,
workers, or recognized representatives of the workers, sat in the Commune,
its decision bore a decidedly proletarian character. Either they decreed
reforms which the republican bourgeoisie had failed to pass solely out of
cowardice, but which provided a necessary basis for the free activity of
the working class – such as the realization of the principle that in
relation to the state, religion is a purely private matter – or they
promulgated decrees which were in the direct interests of the working class
and to some extent cut deeply into the old order of society. In a beleaguered
city, however, it was possible at most to make a start in the realization
of all these measures. And from the beginning of May onwards all their
energies were taken up by the fight against the ever-growing armies assembled
by the Versailles government.

On April 7, the Versailles troops had captured the Seine crossing
at Neuilly, on the western front of Paris; on the other hand, in an attack
on the southern front on the 11th they were repulsed with heavy losses
by General Eudes. Paris was continually bombarded and, moreover, by the
very people who had stigmatized as a sacrilege the bombardment of the same
city by the Prussians. These same people now begged the Prussian government
for the hasty return of the French soldiers taken prisoner at Sedan and
Metz, in order that they might recapture Paris for them. From the beginning
of May the gradual arrival of these troops gave the Versailles forces a
decided ascendancy. This already became evident when, on April 23, Thiers
broke off the negotiations for the exchange, proposed by Commune, of the
Archbishop of Paris [Georges Darboy] and a whole number of other priests held hostages in
Paris, for only one man, Blanqui, who had twice been elected to the Commune
but was a prisoner in Clairvaux. And even more from the changed language
of Thiers; previously procrastinating and equivocal, he now suddenly became
insolent, threatening, brutal. The Versailles forces took the redoubt of
Moulin Saquet on the southern front, on May 3; on the 9th, Fort Issy, which
had been completely reduced to ruins by gunfire; and on the 14th, Fort
Vanves. On the western front they advanced gradually, capturing the numerous
villages and buildings which extended up to the city wall, until they reached
the main wall itself; on the 21st, thanks to treachery and the carelessness
of the National Guards stationed there, they succeeded in forcing their
way into the city. The Prussians who held the northern and eastern forts
allowed the Versailles troops to advance across the land north of the city,
which was forbidden ground to them under the armistice, and thus to march
forward and attack on a long front, which the Parisians naturally thought
covered by the armistice, and therefore held only with weak forces. As
a result of this, only a weak resistance was put up in the western half
of Paris, in the luxury city proper; it grew stronger and more tenacious
the nearer the incoming troops approached the eastern half, the real working
class city.

It was only after eight days’ fighting that the last defender of the Commune were
overwhelmed on the heights of Belleville and Menilmontant; and then the massacre of
defenceless men, women, and children, which had been raging all through the week on an
increasing scale, reached its zenith. The breechloaders could no longer kill fast
enough; the vanquished workers were shot down in hundred by mitrailleuse fire [over
30,000 citizens of Paris were massacred]. The “Wall of the Federals” [aka Wall of the
Communards] at the Pere Lachaise cemetery, where the final mass murder was consummated,
is still standing today, a mute but eloquent testimony to the savagery of which the
ruling class is capable as soon as the working class dares to come out for its rights.
Then came the mass arrests [38,000 workers arrested]; when the slaughter of them all
proved to be impossible, the shooting of victims arbitrarily selected from the
prisoners’ ranks, and the removal of the rest to great camps where they awaited trial by
courts-martial. The Prussian troops surrounding the northern half of Paris had orders
not to allow any fugitives to pass; but the officers often shut their eyes when the
soldiers paid more obedience to the dictates of humanity than to those of the General
Staff; particularly, honor is due to the Saxon army corps, which behaved very humanely
and let through many workers who were obviously fighters for the Commune.

If today, we look back at the activity and historical significance of the
Paris Commune of 1871, we shall find it necessary to make a few additions to
the account given in The Civil War in France.

The members of the Commune were divided into a majority of the Blanquists,
who had also been predominant in the Central Committee of the National Guard;
and a minority, members of the International Working Men’s Association,
chiefly consisting of adherents of the Proudhon school of socialism. The
great majority of the Blanquists at that time were socialist only by
revolutionary and proletarian instinct; only a few had attained greater
clarity on the essential principles, through Vaillant, who was familiar with
German scientific socialism. It is therefore comprehensible that in the
economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the
Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the
holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of
the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in
the hands of the Commune – this would have been worth more than 10,000
hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French
bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favor of peace with the Commune,
but what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was
actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and
Proudhonists. Naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the
economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their
unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and
omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed – as is usual
when doctrinaires come to the helm – that both did the opposite of what
the doctrines of their school proscribed.

Proudhon, the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman,
regarded association with positive hatred. He said of it that there was more
bad than good in it; that it was by nature sterile, even harmful, because it
was a fetter on the freedom of the workers; that it was a pure dogma,
unproductive and burdensome, in conflict as much with the freedom of the
workers as with economy of labor; that its disadvantages multiplied more
swiftly than its advantages; that, as compared with it, competition, division
of labor and private property were economic forces. Only for the exceptional
cases – as Proudhon called them – of large-scale industry and
large industrial units, such as railways, was there any place for the
association of workers. (Cf. Idee Generale de la Revolution, 3
etude.)

By 1871, even in Paris, the centre of handicrafts, large-scale industry
had already so much ceased to be an exceptional case that by far the most
important decree of the Commune instituted an organization of large-scale
industry and even of manufacture which was not based only on the association
of workers in each factory, but also aimed at combining all these
associations in one great union; in short an organization which, as Marx
quite rightly says in The Civil War, must necessarily have led in
the end to communism, that is to say, the direct antithesis of the Proudhon
doctrine. And, therefore, the Commune was also the grave of the Proudhon
school of socialism. Today this school has vanished from French working class
circles; among them now, among the Possibilists no
less than among the “Marxists”, Marx’s theory rules
unchallenged. Only among the “radical” bourgeoisie are there
still Proudhonists.

The Blanquists fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy,
and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started
out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute,
well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize
the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power
until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution
and ranging them round the small band of leaders. this conception involved,
above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the
hands of the new revolutionary government. And what did the Commune, with its
majority of these same Blanquists, actually do? In all its proclamations to
the French in the provinces, it appealed to them to form a free federation of
all French Communes with Paris, a national organization, which for the first
time was really to be created by the nation itself. It was precisely the
oppressing power of the former centralized government, army, political police
and bureaucracy, which Napoleon had created in 1798 and since then had been
taken over by every new government as a welcome instrument and used against
its opponents, it was precisely this power which was to fall everywhere, just
as it had already fallen in Paris.

From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working
class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that
in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working
class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery
previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself
against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without
exception, subject to recall at any moment. What had been the characteristic
attribute of the former state? Society had created its own organs to look
after its common interests, originally through simple division of labor. But
these organs, at whose head was the state power, had in the course of time,
in pursuance of their own special interests, transformed themselves from the
servants of society into the masters of society, as can be seen, for example,
not only in the hereditary monarchy, but equally also in the democratic
republic. Nowhere do “politicians” form a more separate, powerful
section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great
parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn
controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats
in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states,
or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its
victory are rewarded with positions.

It is well known that the Americans have been striving for 30 years to
shake off this yoke, which has become intolerable, and that in spite of all
they can do they continue to sink ever deeper in this swamp of corruption. It
is precisely in America that we see best how there takes place this process
of the state power making itself independent in relation to society, whose
mere instrument it was originally intended to be. Here there exists no
dynasty, no nobility, no standing army, beyond the few men keeping watch on
the Indians, no bureaucracy with permanent posts or the right to pensions.
and nevertheless we find here two great gangs of political speculators, who
alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most
corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends – and the nation is
powerless against these two great cartels of politicians, who are ostensibly
its servants, but in reality exploit and plunder it.

Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from
servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable
transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two
infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts –
administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of
universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to
recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials,
high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest
salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an
effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from
the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also
added in profusion.

This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and
really democratic state is described in detail in the third section of
The Civil War. But it was necessary to dwell briefly here once more
on some of its features, because in Germany particularly the superstitious
belief in the state has been carried over from philosophy into the general
consciousness of the bourgeoisie and even to many workers. According to the
philosophical notion, “the state is the realization of the idea” or the
Kingdom of God on earth, translated into philosophical terms, the sphere in
which eternal truth and justice is or should be realized. And from this
follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with
it, which takes roots the more readily as people from their childhood are
accustomed to imagine that the affairs and interests common to the whole of
society could not be looked after otherwise than as they have been looked
after in the past, that is, through the state and its well-paid officials.
And people think they have taken quite an extraordinary bold step forward
when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by
the democratic republic. In reality, however,
the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by
another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy;
and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious
struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like
the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment,
until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social
conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the
scrap-heap.

Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with
wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and
good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look
at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Frederick Engels

London, on the 20th anniversary

of the Paris Commune, March 18, 1891.