The Communists of Paris

 THE worst of criminals is, according to the practice of English law, entitled to be heard by counsel in his defence, and in politics substantially the same right exists, for, owing to the freedom of the Press, there is no class or party that cannot find some one to stand up and speak in its behalf, even when the tide of public opinion runs most strongly against it. The Communists of Paris have enjoyed the benefit of this development of English liberty, and have found in writers for the English Press apologists, if not defenders—men who, while condemning many of their acts, have sufficient sympathy for their ideal aims to act as interpreters between them and a public to whom, otherwise, their acts would seem incomprehensible. Perhaps the most vigorous of these writers is Mr. FREDERICK HARRISON, who, in the Fortnightly Review, has endeavoured to expound what he considers good in the principles of the Communists. All enthusiasts are men of ideas, and, to understand them, it is necessary to comprehend their ideal. When, as in Paris, they are found to be numerous and organized, and capable of definite and even desperate action, it is essential, at least for the French Government and the French people, to understand as exactly as possible what are their aspirations and what their mode of action. And the inquiry is none the less important for other communities, because Communism belongs to no particular country, but is the product of modern civilization generally. All the civilised communities of the world will have more or less to reckon with it—to assimilate whatever of good there may be latent in it, and by so doing to neutralise all its mischievous tendencies.

Paris has suffered for the benefit of the world. Its literature has often exhibited Socialism as a theory, but its history has never exhibited Socialism as a fact. Men are always best understood by their acts; and the world has never had an opportunity to see what Communists would do, and how they would do it, if they had the power. The reason has been taught in the plainest and most popular style. Even in civilised communities comparatively few persons read books on social economy, and to very many Socialism was a vague idea. But by the light of the burning Tuileries the immense population that reads newspapers and comprehends pictures has seen Socialism painted by itself. What can its sympathisers say for a system which stands defeated and disgraced?

Viewed in one aspect, the Paris insurrection is represented by Mr. Harrison as a protest against the modern tendency to centralization— a tendency that has found its extremest development in France. A free city in a free country was the claim set up for Paris, and the same claim was put forward for all the great cities of the country, and as one of the political ideas of Socialism. And if by this had been meant simply the restoration of municipal rights, and the abolition of the system of governments by prefects who are merely the tools of the central executive, every one probably would have admitted that the claim was a sound one. But then the Communists desire this local freedom, not merely for local and municipal purposes, but to carry out the widest experiments in government, and even to reconstruct the social system on an entirely new basis. A city free to do that can hardly form part of a country every other section of which is equally free to do the opposite. In order that a nation may preserve any degree of unity, there must be some degree of uniformity, though exactly how much is an open question. How could Paris form put of France if it were left free not only to abolish the army, but to abolish the Church, to abolish the institution of property, and repudiate the family tie ? Taking the nation as a whole, the majority is against these experiments ; the enthusiasts therefore wish to bring the political unit down to manageable dimensions, and to rule in the city, if they cannot rule in the country.

The object aimed at, however, is fundamentally social and not political. The idea is to elevate the class that supports itself by labour —a class which the Communists contend has been persistently kept down by the soldier, the priest, and the capitalist. Patriotism and nationality do not therefore enter into their calculation. As to the greatness or glory of France, they ignore it, and the hatred of the foreigner is by them turned into a new channel, and turned into a hatred of the ruling classes. The world, looked at from the proletarian point of view, is seen to be ill governed. Pauperism, and social, political, and military tyrannies, keep in misery thousands whom the imagination pictures as under happier auspices leading happier lives. A whole social philosophy has been developed from this point of view, and those who have received it yearn to practise it, and, finding themselves hindered in every direction, have risen in savage rage at those who prevent them from establishing Utopias.

It has been not unfairly replied to Mr HARRISON that if his clients wish to practise experiments in the art of social structure, they should seek a clear ground for their operations, and imitate the socialistic sects in America, which have been content to withdraw from the busy world and begin their operations de novo. The Parisian Communists, however, have wanted either the money or the self-denial, or of the patience, to put their principles to such a test, and they wish to introduce them in the heart of an old and wealthy country rather than start with them in a wilderness. It is more convenient to make the experiment of doing without property by seizing the wealth of a rich metropolis than to start axe in hand to make a new clearing. " Property is theft," said PROUDHON ; and his followers, by way of illustrating their indignation against thieving, should start their new society by a gigantic act of confiscation. To abolish property in a rich city simply means to take possession of other people's property— to enter, without paying for it, into possession of the inheritance of those who laboured for the purpose of creating that inheritance.

Mr HARRISON also points out with enthusiasm that the Communists are anti-parliamentarians—as much so indeed as the Napoleonists. We are governed, said Mr. DISRAELI lately in the House of Commons, by rhetoric, and not by logic—a vicious mode of government, say the Communists. For the talking Assembly they substituted a small acting Executive. They ridicule the idea of representation or government by majorities. Extremes meet, and the ultra-democrats of modern times revert to the doctrines of an aristocracy, contending that the ignorant may and should be governed by the educated few, and that the wiser should lead the fools. A very excellent doctrine if there were any infallible method of determining who the wise are. But the Parisian Communists seem themselves to have been totally at a loss for any such method. During their short reign in Paris they were perpetually changing their leaders, suspecting one another, and altering their plans, and have left it doubtful whether the wisest amongst them, during the whole time, obtained the controlling power. But if they were not able to guarantee the supremacy of wisdom, they acted with as much decision as if they were infallible Solons. The breadth of some of their edicts surpasses anything known in the government of the most despotic tyrants. There was none of the timidity or hesitation of those who believe in two sides to a question, or who think that organic changes should be brought about with the least possible disturbance of the existing order. The new reformers, while disclaiming against war, patronise government by the sword. They cut all Gordian knots, and suppress all rebellion, and the liberty they offer to those who differ with them is the liberty to submit. It will take some time, we imagine, before those who have been brought up in attachment to the old fashioned ideas of constitutional government will be converted to the new creed.

Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Monday 7 August 1871, page 4