72

L'Internationale :france-cool:

The Paris Commune was established on 18 March 1871, but its roots can be traced right back to 1848, when a wave of democratic revolution originating in France washed across the European continent

In France, the democratic revolution was defeated in a matter of months, ending with the bloody suppression of a workers’ revolt protesting against the closure of the national workshops in June 1848. Despite this, the street fighting of this period laid the foundations for the establishment of an autonomous French workers’ movement, which operated independently of the centrist bourgeois political parties—a key prerequisite for the formation of the 72-day-long “Republic of Workers” in 1871.

Following the defeat of the uprising, however, a military dictatorship initially asserted control, before handing the reins to Napoleon III a few months later. East of the Rhine, in a fragmented Germany, monarchic powers were also able to put down revolutionary efforts and defeat the democracy movement. The latter’s demand for German national unity was subsequently co-opted “from above”, redefined and positioned as a project designed to suit the Prussian-led response. The policies pursued by the Prussian crown were geared towards preserving monarchic power while also seeking to unify Germany, this would led to the Franco-Prussian War.

During the Franco-Prussian war the then Emperor Napoleon III was capture during the Battle of Sedan. This sudden defeat sealed the fate of the Second French Empire, but did not signify the end of the war, with the Prussian troops marching onwards towards Paris with the aim of capturing it.

Following the defeat at the Battle of Sedan, the Third Republic was proclaimed in Paris, despite a complete lack of democratic legitimacy. Although the empire’s political and military failures meant it had been discredited, the Republic did not act to remove the monarchy. According to Marx, the measures taken by the government were evidence that they had “inherited from the empire not only ruins, but also its dread of the working class”.

By the beginning of October 1870, Paris was under total siege, beset on all sides by Prussian forces, and attempts to break the siege line with troops from the provinces had also failed. At the end of January 1871, Jules Favre, minister of foreign affairs for the Provisional Government of National Defence, signed an armistice with the newly formed German Empire

The armistice treaty stipulated that only a freshly elected National Assembly would have the power to ratify an eventual peace treaty. The assembly first met on 12 February in Bordeaux—far removed from the nation’s capital, which remained in a state of total siege by German troops.

In Paris, both the choice of location for the National Assembly as well as the make-up of the new government were viewed as betrayals of those who had spent months defending the capital against the siege.

In order to defend Paris against the German troops, in September 1870 the Thiers-led government had reorganized the National Guard and enlisted unemployed men into its regiments. This led to a change in the military’s demographic character; National Guard soldiers deposed their officers, elected new commanders from within their own ranks, and also established their own governing body, the Central Committee of the National Guard.

Having failed to capture the cannons and surprised by the workers’ resolve, Thiers decided to decamp the capital and head to Versailles, accompanied by his government and loyalist army regiments. That they were able to flee the city with ease was due to the fact that the National Guard battalions—anticipating a renewed attack by government forces—had barricaded themselves in their neighbourhood strongholds or otherwise directed their movements to avoid a confrontation.

As the sun set over Paris that evening, power in the French capital essentially resided on the streets. Given this situation, the National Guard’s Central Committee decided to cobble together a provisional government. The majority of the Parisian population first learnt of the shift that had occurred in their city the following morning, when the Central Committee occupied the Hôtel de Ville, raised a red flag, and addressed the city’s residents with their first proclamation:

You charged us with organizing the defence of Paris and of your rights.

We are conscious of having fulfilled this mission: aided by your generous courage and your admirable calm, we have chased out the government that betrayed us.

At this time our mandate has expired, and we yield it, for we don’t claim to be taking the place of those who a revolutionary wind has just overthrown.

So prepare and carry out your communal elections, and as a reward give us the only one we ever wished for: seeing you establish the true republic.

In the meanwhile, in the name of the people we will remain at the Hôtel-de-Ville.

The provisional government’s first official act was publishing a call for elections to determine the make-up of the Commune Council. The revolution of the previous day had laid the foundations for a French republic that would permanently “mark the end of the era of invasions and civil war”. Additionally, the Central Committee saw itself as the force that had defended Paris and one which would now return control of the city to its residents through the council elections.

The election took place less than ten days later, on 26 March; just two days later, the Paris Commune officially came into being. Given the urgency of organizing an election within such a short timeframe, there was scant discussion about the Commune’s actual political programme in those first few days. For this reason—according to Prosper Lissagaray, himself a Communard—votes were primarily cast based on name recognition. Consequently, the Commune Council ended up comprising a colourful mixture of Jacobins, socialists, anarchists, Romantics, and representatives of the bourgeoise opposition to Napoleon III. This meant that the Commune included powerful factions that took their political inspiration from the concepts of the bourgeoise French Revolution of 1789 right alongside proto-socialists, anarchists, and Marxists. This diversity of political positions was reflective of the century of class struggle that had preceded the founding of the Commune.

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

reminders:

  • 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
  • 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
  • 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
  • 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

Financial Support to the Bearsite

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

Even a well meaning brain surgeon who stepped up to do their job can leave you with a messed up head. Taking responsibility for the outcomes isn't the same as not being appreciative for the operation.

[-] PowerLurker@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

genuine clarification: is the well meaning brain surgeon in this scenario the parent i mentioned? if so, i'd caution against assuming parents who fucked their kids up were necessarily well meaning. mine wasn't as bad as some of the absolute demons out there, one could argue she "tried her best" which...maybe, but

mild trauma dumpher best effort resulted in someone who actively demeaned, insulted, and shamed her kids as a method of discipline (for dumb, ultimately meaningless shit like bad grades), and who used physical abuse as discipline (and also just out of temper/emotional disregulation) with my oldest sibling. if i brought this up with her, she'd deflect, evade, or spin the blame: there has been no attempt at a process of repair, because i don't think she sees what she did as "that bad" or necessarily even wrong, outside an intellectual acknowledgment that it wasn't ideal. she is, in many ways, the same person and does milder, less overt version of the same tactics to this day.
and again, not nearly as bad as some of the pure, absolute demons out there some folk have to regrettably call their parents (through no choice of their own). if i misunderstood what you were trying to say, i apologize. but i do think that, societally, there's a tendency toward assuming best faith of people who have kids, and of papering over harmful behavior. and i do empathize to a degree: it's an extremely difficult, 24/7 job that you're locked into for at least 18 years once you have a child. one of the many reasons i myself have zero interest in having kids.  

[-] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I did mean parents, yeah. I didn't mean to assume parents are always well meaning. I meant that even if they were well meaning they can still leave you with psychological trauma. It's an easier calculus to understand that a malicious actor does something bad and that has consequences that need addressing. But if an immature parent is all "I did the best with what I could" you might have the person coming from that environment going all "thank you for making me strong by making sure I never cried."

By calculus I mean there's an underlying assumption in the latter case that because the parent was well meaning in their attempt to be a parent (in trying to do brain surgery) that the downstream effects of the parenting are generally favorable and needn't be examined through a therapeutic lens. You could find success and be miserable because your locus of self-worth is granted and therefore can be taken away by arbitrary others and randomly fluctuating conditions with such conditioning. That's a less obviously linked response than, say, an aversion to combat sports because of more... clear cut memories. A person from that environment doesn't need a metaphor about brain surgery to seek resources and communicate trauma to partners.

[-] PowerLurker@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

I did mean parents, yeah. I didn't mean to assume parents are always well meaning. I meant that even if they were well meaning they can still leave you with psychological trauma. It's an easier calculus to understand that a malicious actor does something bad and that has consequences that need addressing. But if an immature parent is all "I did the best with what I could" you might have the person coming from that environment going all "thank you for making me strong by making sure I never cried."

ah yes, this does make sense! i think we're mostly on the same page, and what you said about "acknowledging trauma from someone who did want to do right by their kids being in certain ways harder than acknowledging harm from a clearly malicious parent" is very insightful. this stuff isn't all or nothing, for sure. i guess i'd just spent most of my adulthood in kind of a self-minimizing space about the harms done there, and a confluence of things the past year and a half or so are making me reexamine shit. why do i feel compelled to journalpost about it on hexbear? who's to say shrug-outta-hecks

[-] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

If it's any comfort, I am also journalposting about the last ~6 months and revelations of the last 2.

this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
72 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14346 readers
642 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS