Between Marxism and Anarchism: Benoit Malon and French Reformist Socialism [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9780520911406

Citation preview

Between Marxism and Anarchism

Between Marxism and Anarchism Benoît Malon and French Reformist Socialism

K. Steven Vincent

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley • Los Angeles • Oxford

This book is a print-on-demand volume. It is manufactured using toner in place of ink. Type and images may be less sharp than the same material seen in traditionally printed University of California Press editions.

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. Oxford, England ©1992 by The Regents of the University of California Frontispiece: Benoit Malon, c. 1890. Photo by Pierre Petit. Originally published in volume 1 of the second edition of Le Socialisme intégral (Paris: Alcan, 1893).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vincent, K. Steven. Between Marxism and Anarchism : Benoit Malon and French reformist socialism / K. Steven Vincent, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-520-07460-2 1. Malon, Benoit, 1841-1893. 2. Socialists—France—Biography. 3. Socialism—France—History—19th century. I. Title. HX264.7.M34V56 1992 335'.0092—dc20 [B] 91-3434 CIP

Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. @

For Sue

Contents

Preface Acknowledgments Introduction 1. The Early Years ( 1 8 4 1 - 1 8 7 1 ) : Cooperatism, the International, the W a r , and the Commune Early Years, Paris, and Cooperatism Mikhail Bakunin and Anarchism The First International and Collectivism The Franco-Prussian War and the Siege of Paris The Paris Commune Malon's Socialism: 1 8 6 6 - 1 8 7 1 2 . The Years of Exile ( 1 8 7 1 - 1 8 8 0 ) : André Léo, the Jura Federation, and Italian Anarchism Exile André Léo The Jura Federation Italy: Anarchism versus Experimentalism The Writings of the Late 1870s Ferdinand Lassalle and Reformism

ix xiii 1

7 7 10 14 23 29 36 39 39 41 45 52 57 62

vii

viii

Contents

3. Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left Socialism in France during the Early 1870s The Introduction of Marxism The Victory of Collectivism: 1879-1880 The Factionalism of the Early 1880s and Malon's Return to France French Marxist Thought: Paul Lafargue Malon on Marxism and Collectivism Collectivism, Marxism, and the French Left 4. La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

La Revue socialiste Revolution and Reform Republicanism The French Revolution, Nationalism, and the Third Republic Integral Socialism: Socioeconomic Reform Integral Socialism: Political and Social Reform Integral Socialism: Altruism Conclusion Notes Index

67 67 70 74 81 86 93 99 101 101 105 108 111 119 123 128 135 143 187

Preface

The exaggerated sense of hope on the Left that attended the sweeping electoral victories of François Mitterrand and the socialists in 1981 was quickly followed by disenchantment. Frustrated expectations fed earlier feelings of ideological crisis, and the result has been a broad-based reassessment of the French Left. One recurrent theme in this new critical appraisal is the presumed failure of the French Left to theorize convincingly about the state. Several analysts have argued that the Left is part of the French revolutionary tradition that gives priority to politics over economics and believes the power of centralized politics to be almost limitless. 1 It has been further argued that the left-wing version of this tradition has been more concerned with the grounds upon which one can justify centralized authority than with the ends for which this authority might be used. Another recent analyst, curiously enough, has advanced the opposite criticism of the French Left—namely, that it tends to neglect politics, to reduce it to insignificance because of the unfortunate influence of two potent theoretical models of power coming from Marx and Rousseau. 2 Marx's vision is flawed, this critic charges, because it assumes that all political power is a reflection of social antagonisms. Rousseau's vision has a similar problem: though it remains a quintessentially political vision, it mortgages real politics—deliberative politics—for the purchase of abstract conceptions like general will and popular sovereignty. What these critics share is a belief that the French Left has been theoretically deficient, unable to articulate a theory of politics that confronts the interaction of political and socioeconomic issues in a clearheaded manner. Unfortunately, these criticisms are more effective as contemporary polemics than as serious historical analyses: they do not

ix

X

Preface

successfully characterize the theoretical core of the French Left's vision because they fail to describe adequately the ideological diversity of the French Left. 3 The first view—that the French Left is part of the revolutionary tradition that exaggerates the power of politics—neglects a central strain of thinking on the French Left that has regarded centralized politics with suspicion. To argue that the Left has devoted its efforts to justifying centralized authority neglects the entire antistatist strain on the socialist Left and belittles the serious efforts at socioeconomic change that socialists have always held to be central to the program of reform. Many French socialists have insisted that it is a mistake to place too much faith in the political arena, suggesting that the democratic enthusiasm associated with the French Revolution needed to extend to social and economic institutions. The second view—that socialists have never had a realistic conception of the give-and-take of concrete politics—also neglects significant traditions on the Left. It fails to take seriously those who have been concerned with economics and politics, and indeed with how to fashion realistic participatory arenas for deliberation about immediate economic and political issues. My point in criticizing these current examples of reflection about the "agony of the Left" is not to make a plea for political conversion, nor is it prefatory to making a claim that socialists have had an easier time than others in outlining a salutary orientation toward politics. It is rather to insist on a more accurate accounting of the historical record, to demand recognition of the variety of stances taken by those who have called themselves socialists. If the term "socialism" evokes the image of a coherent and enduring movement pressing for certain common aims, then we see a mirage. Fundamental differences in program have always existed—over the role of the state, over the status of property, over the meaning and import of Marxism, over the issues of consumerism and quality of life. Complex and fluid patterns should not be forced into too rigid an order. But if programs differ, problems recur. The history of the French socialist movement is an especially rich and varied one, and French social thought has contributed greatly to our ideas about the nature of a just society and about the intractable difficulties encountered in moving toward it. My own attempts to contribute to a historical understanding of the French Left have focused on the nonauthoritarian side of French socialism, and more specifically on the republican, reformist,

Preface

xi

and federalist strains associated with mutualism, syndicalism, and (in this study) reformism. 4 Given the current ideological climate—the growing opposition to the Marxism that was so central to intellectual debates after liberation in 1944, the belated abhorrence of Soviet totalitarianism, the new resistance to the statist ideas of the "Old Left," whether Soviet or social democratic—it is perhaps timely to insist on the importance of such pluralistic and libertarian currents on the French Left.

Acknowledgments

I have been fortunate to have received financial assistance for this project from a number of organizations. An NEH Summer Stipend and a North Carolina State University Faculty Research and Professional Development Grant allowed me to make my first exploration of the archival sources in Paris during the summer of 1983. A major part of the conceptualization, organization, and writing was done during the 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 academic year while I was a fellow at the National Humanities Center. I am grateful to the Mellon Foundation for their financial support, to the staff of the NHC for their many kindnesses, and to the other fellows, who made it such a stimulating year. I was able to spend portions of the summers of 1988 and 1989 in Amsterdam and Paris doing further research, thanks to a North Carolina State University Research Grant and an NEH Travel Grant. Friends and colleagues have also helped in countless ways. I would like to thank John Rudge and Ochrid Hogen Esch in Amsterdam for making the summer of 1988 a pleasure on so many levels. The staff at the Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis also deserves a special thanks—not only do they have a marvelous collection, but they seem to take pleasure in making it accessible to researchers. Mieke Ijzermans of the IISG provided extraordinary assistance, even after I had left Amsterdam. In Paris, I owe special thanks to Rachel Mizrahi for accommodation, friendship, and many hours of verbal rumination about workers, exiles, death, et l'autre aussi. Early versions of the manuscript, or portions of it, were read by Jim Banker, Bill Beezley, Alex DeGrand, and Tony LaVopa. A portion of chapter 3 was presented as a paper at an annual meeting of the Society for French Historical Studies, and Joel Colton gave a useful commen-

xiii

xiv

Acknowledgments

tary. Leslie Derfler subsequently read the whole of chapter 3 and provided helpful suggestions, especially concerning the pages relating to Lafargue and the Marxists. Later versions of the manuscript were read by Tony LaVopa (again!), Keith Luria, Pat O'Brien, Don Reid, and Bernard Wishy. Each had recommendations for stylistic and substantive revisions, some incorporated, others (as they will no doubt remind me) stubbornly rejected. I am very grateful for their help. The majority of these people are members of my own department or teach in neighboring institutions of the North Carolina "Triangle," a good indication of how fortunate I am to be part of a lively and supportive intellectual community. Peter Vincent, my brother, prepared the photograph of Malon. Sharon Darden and Janice Mitchell helped prepare the final typescript. At the University of California Press, Sheila Levine, Pamela MacFarland, and Marian Shotwell did a wonderfully efficient job of editing the manuscript and seeing it through the production process. I have saved the most important acknowledgments for last. Sue Vincent has read, reread, and rewritten much of this manuscript, and it is immeasurably better as a consequence. She has also endured its author (and the environment in which he has been constrained to work) through a difficult period. I hope that she knows and feels the depth of my gratitude. Daniel, our son, has been forced to put up with the peculiarities of my travel and work schedule; I hope that he will come to understand—and that I shall not come to regret—the postponement of all those games of basketball and soccer.

Introduction

The guiding thread of this study is an intellectual biography of Benoît Malon, a prominent, but often overlooked, socialist of the late nineteenth century. Malon ( 1 8 4 1 - 9 3 ) is characteristically presented as the most visible spokesperson for French reformist socialism during the early years of the Third Republic. Assessments of his thought have varied dramatically—from Gabriel Deville's charge that Malon effected a "systematic deformation of Marxism" fit only for "masons and spiritualists" and Zeev Sternhell's recent implication that Malon was protofascist to Léon Blum's fond reference to Malon as " a true proletarian hero." 1 Such partisan assessments indicate more about the polemics of their authors than about Malon, who has never been comprehensively studied. The tendency of the literature, as these citations indicate, has been to relegate Malon to a position in the emergence of "true" Marxist socialism in France (Deville), to see him as an important, but immature, precursor of Jean Jaurès (Blum), or to place him in relation to some ahistorical definition of "French fascism" (Sternhell). In attempting to penetrate such partiality and to understand Malon in his historical context, we must locate him chronologically in what might be termed the generation of the Commune. Malon was a member of the generation on the French Left that came of age under the Second Empire and was initiated into the working-class movement and socialism during the 1860s, with the reemergence of the labor movement and the establishment of the First International. The defining event for this generation was the Paris Commune of 1871, which they experienced in their late twenties. Because of their participation in and sympathy for the Commune, many were forced to spend the decade of the 1870s in exile or prison, returning to France in the 1880s and 1890s to edit journals and help form socialist labor and 1

2

Introduction

political organizations. The number of influential left-wing personalities of the early Third Republic born during the 1840s is striking—Edouard Vaillant (b. 1840), Paul Lafargue (b. 1842), Jean Allemane (b. 1843), Paul Brousse (b. 1844), Jules Guesde (b. 1845), and Georges Sorel (b. 1847), in addition to Malon. Not all of the notable socialist theorists of this generation had the same experiences, of course, but they shared a great deal, and their ideals and fears reflected the trials of these years. Malon has been undeservedly neglected by historians of French socialism, though many have judged him to be—in the words of Georges Lefranc—"the most striking personality among the independent socialists [of the 1880s and 1890s]." 2 Malon produced the first large-scale History of Socialism and edited the influential paper La Revue socialiste from 1885 until his death in 1893. Activist, author, editor, and the principal proponent of what at the time was called integral socialism, he was a particularly prominent and visible socialist writer during these years.3 Jaurès recalled that as a young man he had had to screw up his courage to climb the stairs to the editorial offices of La Revue socialiste in anticipation of meeting the great Malon. 4 Ironically, Malon's influence seems to have led many analysts of French socialist thought to pass him by, anticipating the more illustrious figures to follow and attracted by the explosive debates surrounding the Dreyfus affair and the attainment of socialist unity. In curious contrast to the superficial recognition of the importance of Malon and his contemporaries, there has been a tendency to take this generation less seriously than earlier or later French socialists.5 This study will attempt not only to reintroduce Malon but also to illuminate how pivotal he and his generation were in accommodating socialism to the Republic. It will attempt to put to rest those characterizations that reduce Malon and his contemporaries to the status of quasi Marxists or protofascists and to clarify how they established an enduring reformist socialist tradition. This will necessitate relating Malon and his contemporaries to the critical public struggles of their lives—the First International, the Paris Commune, exile, Third Republic politics, and so on. It will entail, in addition, the reexamination of some of the myths that still pervade the historiography of French socialism. The most enduring of these myths is the centrality of Marxism. Sixty years ago, Roger Soltau claimed that none of the leaders of French socialism between Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Jaurès was "in any sense

Introduction

3

an original thinker" and that "the real history of French socialism becomes that of its varied reactions to Marxism." 6 This reduction of French socialism to the status of a "proto-" or "immature" Marxism still has its adherents, but its popularity as a serious interpretive strategy is declining.7 Few historians would contest the assertion that Marxism was an important element in the ideology of the French Left during the last years of the nineteenth century and for most of the twentieth; and Marx's writings were indisputably significant in the intellectual development of numerous luminaries on the Left, from Sorel and Jaurès to Louis Althusser. By the late nineteenth century, Marxism was a theory with which socialists had to come to terms, and debates between selfstyled Marxists and their opponents were an important part of the socialists' continuing efforts at intellectual self-definition. But it would be inaccurate to claim that Marxism was the dominant ideology. Indeed, in the early history of French socialism, the role of Marxism was marginal, and even after 1880 it remained only one ideological strain among many. More important than Marxism in the development of French socialism was an indigenous tradition of republican socialist thought that had emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century.8 This tradition, which drew from classical models, insisted on the interaction of political institutions and social mores. The institutional side of republicanism was distinctive in that the people were considered not only the ultimate repository of sovereignty (an ideal compatible with monarchy and empire) but also active participants in politics. Although there were disputes concerning the nature of their participation—whether it should be direct or through representatives—all republicans shared a belief in self rule of the people. But the success of a republic was dependent on more than just an institutional organization: it required that citizens exercise "virtue," a political morality which entailed respect for law, love of country, and a willingness to sacrifice immediate interests for the good of the larger community. Many socialists focused on the decadence of modern society, contrasting this with virtue, which French thinkers since Montesquieu had argued was necessary for the survival of republics. Within this tradition, the contrary of virtue is corruption, not alienation.9 The modern concern for the latter is rooted in Hegelian philosophy and has received a great deal of attention since the rediscovery of Marx's early writings. But what concerned republican socialists like Malon was corruption—specifically, the corruption of virtue,

4

Introduction

which, according to the republican tradition in France, was brought on by a decline of public-spiritedness. Corruption meant a loss of public life, a turning inward, a transition from public concerns to selfish private considerations. Rousseau, Robespierre, and Tocqueville—to name several from across the political spectrum—were all concerned with corruption and the loss of republican virtue. This seemed the underlying problem of French society and, therefore, of its politics. Republican socialists were particularly alarmed by the increased tendency toward selfish individualism and the untempered economic ambition encouraged by liberal economists. As recent scholars have pointed out, the development of this republican tradition in late eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century France often reinforced patriarchy because it restricted the public sphere to independent, autonomous men. Women were widely associated with weakness and the corruption of public morals, and the logic of republicanism thereby excluded them from political action. It was not uncommon to find republicans across the political spectrum arguing that women should be confined to the home. Here chastity, simplicity, and frugality could prevail, and here women could attain the ideal of the Spartan mother educating her children to virtue. 10 The left-wing socialist version of the republican tradition emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, and it carried the legacy of these ideals of virtue and patriarchy. 11 This is not to imply that French socialism glorified the martial virtues or the independence bestowed by property ownership associated with the ideal of the ancient citizen. Socialists sought to delineate a less chauvinistic, more benevolent, and more inclusive polity than the full-blown participatory republic associated with Greece and Rome. They believed that citizenship should be based on labor, rather than on landed property, because such property often blinded its owners to the suffering of others and could become itself the source of social and political corruption. Labor, on the other hand, was the key to social reform and human self-realization, and workers—at least some workers—were perceived as the most important human agents for historical transformation. 12 This republican socialism of the mid-nineteenth century was a potent influence on later French socialists. The moralism, for example, that continued to animate French socialism throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth has its roots here, as do the increasingly vociferous critiques of commercialism, consumer society, and bourgeois decadence. Ideals of virtue and patriarchy also found their echoes in late

Introduction

5

nineteenth-century French socialist thought, and the general revalorization of labor continued to provide the basis for redefining the appropriate locus for power. The dynamics of these influences are an important part of the story of Malon and his generation. The legacy of the republican tradition is connected closely to the issue of the relation between society and the state. This has long been a central issue in French history and a pivotal concern of French thinkers. Should the state be strong, provide economic guidance, control and harness private interests, set high cultural standards, and protect the weak from the strong—in short, embody the general interest over the lesser and dubious private interests, as Rousseauist myth suggests? Or should society emancipate itself from the constraints of state control and emphasize the autonomy of citizens and their voluntary associations? This debate transcends political boundaries. There is a right-wing etatiste or dirigiste tradition (monarchical, Bonapartist, and, more recently, Gaullist) and a corresponding left-wing tradition (Jacobin, SaintSimonian, and, more recently, communist); and there is a right-wing anti-dirigisme (aristocratic and, more recently, liberal) and a corresponding left-wing version (federalist, syndicalist, anarchist, and, more recently, autogestionnaire). The left-wing version of this debate has divided French socialism since its inception in the early nineteenth century. Many have viewed themselves as heirs of the French Revolutionary tradition that posited almost limitless power for centralized politics. Left-wing statism shared much with the monarchical tradition in which policy emanated from above and property was the domain of the state. As kings "owned" the domaine royale and enlightened despots made reform policy "from above," so revolutionary governments imposed laws and confiscated and sold biens nationaux. Their nineteenth-century emulators similarly viewed the state's role as central, and many socialists adopted a SaintSimonian vision of elite-led social engineering. Others on the Left have opposed the notion of a paternalistic state and have favored what since the 1840s has been termed industrial democracy. This associationist tradition (also known as Proudhonian, federalist, or syndicalist) was neither as intellectually impoverished nor as historically unimportant as some recent analysts have suggested. 13 Drawing from pluralistic traditions that opposed the excessive powers of kings and emperors, antistatist socialists insisted that political power be divided and shared by occupational and regional bodies. Debate over the relationship of state and society has transcended

6

Introduction

changes of regime, but with the establishment of the Third Republic in 1870, and especially with its consolidation after 1876, it acquired a new acuity. The problem stemmed from the fact that it was now not just the state, but the republican state, that required assessment. The Left had always had an ambiguous view of French republics. On the one hand, the republic represented the rupture with the Old Regime and with the privileges associated with it. It stood for the realization of civil liberties and wider political participation. On the other hand, the republic was essentially a bourgeois republic, which in its various incarnations (1792, 1848, 1870) had proved unsympathetic to fundamental social reform. French socialists of the Third Republic were divided on how to deal with the demonstrably conservative republic that they faced. Whether revolutionary or reformist, they recognized the need for a revision of the economic and social institutions upon which practical political power was based. But there was also near-unanimous agreement among them that a republic provided the most favorable political setting in which such a revision could be brought about. As a result, developing a particular stance vis-à-vis the Third Republic was a difficult task. In the development of these ideas, the contributions of Benoît Malon are of considerable importance. An account of his career and ideas illuminates the general development of socialist thought during the last third of the nineteenth century. More specifically, it highlights the emergence of a modern reformist socialist movement in France. Malon was instrumental in intellectually accommodating socialism to the Republic: he moved from advocating abstention from all politics in the late 1860s to endorsement of electoral politics in the 1880s. He began as an internationalist flirting with anarchism, became a Communard advocating revolution, a collectivist fighting against the Marxists, and ended as a reformist agonizing over the locus of national sovereignty and the disorder of parliamentary deliberation. At first drawn to an administrative vision based on "science" and "reason," he came to recognize that there was no precise "science of society" and that deliberation between representatives of different social groups and geographic regions was the most hopeful means of realizing sociopolitical progress. He helped the republican socialist Left shed its revolutionary associations, pointing the way for later reformist socialists from Jaurès to Mitterrand.

CHAPTER

ONE

The Early Years (1841-1871): Cooperatism, the International, the War, and the Commune Nés à la vie politique, pendant l'oppression impériale, nous avons pu, sans journaux, sans tribune, sans liberté d'aucune sorte, sans traditions, puisque quinze ans de silence et de corruption nous séparaient de nos aînés de 1848-1851, nous avons pu, dis-je, constituer un parti prolétarien-socialiste.1

EARLY YEARS, PARIS, AND COOPERATISM Benoît Malon was one of the few socialist leaders and writers of the late nineteenth century who was himself a worker. Because of his modest and largely unrecorded background, very little is known about his childhood. 2 Malon tells us in his "Fragment de mémoires," written in 1884, that his parents were from peasant families of the Forez mountains contiguous to the Auvergne. He was born in Prétieux, in the Loire, on 23 June 1841, the third of four male children. His early years witnessed family tragedies not uncommon for mid—nineteenth-century landless peasants: his oldest brother died in 1844, and his father died shortly after, leaving the family in poverty. They subsequently lived close to subsistence, and Malon touchingly recounted the anxieties and fears he experienced at the age of five when he was left alone with his younger brother from early morning until late evening while his mother worked. 3 In 1849 his younger brother and constant companion, JeanMarie, also died. 4 Malon recalled being a sensitive melancholic child who stuttered and who was much given to mysticism and religious piety. He loved to read, but his readings were confined to the Gospels and other religious books, like the Vies des saints. He remembered reacting strongly against his one exposure to antireligious thought—a book of Meslier pushed upon 7

8

The Early Years (1841-1871)

him by an old peasant who also recounted to the young Malon stories of the Republic and the Empire.5 Much of Malon's childhood was spent working as a shepherd on the farms around Pretieux and, after his family moved in 1854, on farms in the Ain department. In 1868, he recalled that during most of his childhood he had "for true friends, only animals—some cows, and some dogs." 6 Nonetheless, looking back in 1884, Malon remembered these years as a generally happy period of his life, which ended abruptly when he became seriously ill as a teenager.7 To convalesce he was sent to the home of his older brother, Jean, who had become a schoolteacher close to Montbrison.8 It was during this convalescence that Malon's real education began. He became a voracious reader of literature on a wide variety of topics; in later years, he was noted for his extensive knowledge of economics, history, and politics. Something of his passion for learning is revealed in the variety of topics addressed in his later correspondence and published writings and in his study of Latin, Greek, German, and Italian. There is no additional information about Malon's childhood and adolescence. His story resumes in September 1863, when he walked to Paris to begin a new life. Relieved to have been spared military service (he had drawn a good number in the lottery), he took jobs as a common laborer and as a dye worker in the commune of Puteaux, a rapidly expanding industrial suburb across the Seine from Neuilly. The first indications of Malon's interest in the "social question"—capital versus labor, rich against poor—date from this period. In July 1866 he participated in a strike for higher pay by the dye workers of Puteaux, and its failure focused his attentions on cooperative organizations for workers.9 Malon's name was the first of five on an appeal to the workers of Puteaux, Suresnes, and the surrounding countryside dated 10 August 1866, calling for the founding of a savings and credit institution that would provide the basis for a cooperative of consumption and production. The appeal indicated that this was "the peaceful path to [the workers'] emancipation," and it ended with the following proclamation, which underlines the high hopes that the workers invested in cooperative associations: "The future is ours: the patronat declines, association begins!" 10 On 5 September 1866, the new credit and savings society that resulted from this effort began operations. Malon was elected vice-pres-

The Early Years (1841-1871)

9

ident and was instrumental in transforming it, during the early months of 1867, into a consumers' cooperative called La Revendication.11 Its stated purpose was "morally and materially to ameliorate the lot of the workers of [the] localities" and to bring about their "complete emancipation from the murderous demands of capital, that ungrateful offspring of work that denies and oppresses its father." 12 It was an open cooperative; Malon made clear that it welcomed all workers without distinction of profession.13 Writing about his motives for founding La Revendication, Malon articulated his reformist socialist philosophy for the first time. The "oeuvre" of his epoch, he stated, was social equity. Technological advances alone would not bring this about; indeed, given present social arrangements, mechanization and industrialization would benefit only patrons. Recourse to industrial strikes, however, was rejected by Malon. He characterized them as "often powerless, always disastrous" and believed that they would only perpetuate the cycle of violence and thus were "unworthy of a century of progress." 14 Instead, he promoted the ideal of cooperation as the means by which workers could lead themselves to social justice. By cooperation, we wish to bring affluence [I'aisattce] back into the home, where poverty now reigns. We want to affirm the grand principle of solidarity there where the isolated egoist reigns, we want to awaken thought and to raise hearts where ignorance has narrowed souls and degraded characters. We wish to give hope to those who have habitually despaired of the future and to give a center of moral strength to those who have been handed over to the discretion of the exploiters of industry and the parasites of exchange.15

While it is difficult in retrospect to grant cooperatives such a transformative role, they remained popular in working-class towns like Puteaux into the twentieth century.16 Malon's enthusiasm about the benefits of cooperative consumer societies was such that he helped to found other similar societies in the late 1860s. He recalled in 1891: "With the foundation of this [cooperative] society in 1866-1867 . . . I entered into socialism."17 Malon's ideology in 1866—67 was rooted in the associationist socialism so widespread in France during the July Monarchy, the Second Republic, and the Second Empire. It was not uncommon for articulate workers during the 1860s to call for a democratic organization of the workshop that would allow them to divide up work and elect fore-

10

The Early Years (1841-1871)

men. 18 The more specific reference for Malon seems to have been Proudhon, who, as Malon recalled in 1887, was the most prominent and influential socialist at the time: [In the late 1860s], the militant party of the French proletariat was almost entirely mutualist. The tomb of Proudhon was scarcely closed [he died in 1865] when his Capacité politique des classes ouvrières, published by his faithful disciples, became overnight the book of the most studious and intelligent part of the French proletariat.19

Malon was attracted to Proudhon because he had called for a fundamental restructuring of moral, social, and economic relations. He had implored workers to isolate themselves from the debilitating egoism of the wealthy, and he insisted that they form their own organizations and rely on their own efforts. Advocating a reform of property that would eliminate "idlers," who lived off the labor of others, he wanted to return control and direction of the economy to the hands of workers. This was to be achieved not through strikes or revolution, but through working-class associative/mutualist action. Parallel to this demand for industrial democracy, Proudhon had called for a political federalism that would ignore national politics not based on the administrative preeminence of local communities. This was a position that, for Proudhon, entailed not only abstention from the electoral politics of the Second Empire, but also opposition to left-wing Jacobinism. Both the economic and political aspects of Proudhon's mature theory rested on a model of small groups mediating between the isolated individual and the authoritarian and centralized conglomerate, an idea that the organizers of cooperatives would have found congenial. Furthermore, Proudhon's writings were animated by a moral fervor that inveighed against the decadent upper classes; this, too, would have found a ready response among struggling, and often impoverished, workers. 20 A Proudhonian orientation among workers and their sympathizers was common during the 1860s, even for future leaders of French Marxism like Lafargue. 21 But it did not go unchallenged. Before the end of the Empire, mutualist cooperatism was giving way to more militant ideologies. Malon's ideological development took place within the newly created International and in dialogue with the anarchism of Mikhail Bakunin. MIKHAIL BAKUNIN AND ANARCHISM During the late 1860s, Malon became active in the fledgling International Workingmen's Association (IWMA), and he flirted with the se-

The Early Years (1841-1871)

11

cret organizations that revolved around Bakunin. Although less significant than his participation in the International, Malon's relationship with Bakunin deserves some attention. Bakunin was probably the most famous anarchist militant of the late nineteenth century. Born in 1814 into a Russian gentry family, he received a broad liberal education that included European literature, painting, music, and poetry. Like other Russian intellectuals of his generation, he absorbed the successive waves of ideas coming from western and central Europe—first, romantic sentimentalism and German idealist philosophy; then, after he left Russia for the west in 1840, Left Hegelianism and finally anarchism. During the 1840s, he agitated for Polish national independence and Pan-Slavism and took an active part in the revolutionary struggles in Prague in 1848 and Dresden in 1849. Handed over by the Saxons to the Austrians, and then by the Austrians to the Russian authorities, he spent over a decade imprisoned and in exile. In 1861, he escaped from Siberia to Japan, then traveled via the United States to London. He was particularly active in Italy and Switzerland during the remaining years of his life (he died in 1876), and it was from this regional base that he organized his secret sects, plotted revolutionary conspiracies, and confronted Marx with an anarchist theory that questioned the very basis of authority and political power. It was during the final decade of his life that Bakunin exerted his greatest influence on the French Left. Bakunin's anarchism was appealing to French activists because it championed individual liberty against the state and combated authority in all its forms. Few thinkers were as uncompromising as Bakunin in his demand for the liberation of individuals from the constraints imposed upon them not only by political institutions, but also by philosophical, religious, and social systems. Less readily accepted in France was Bakunin's belief that the replacement of the authoritarian state required a violent and all-encompassing upheaval of the masses. He was convinced that only explosive popular outbursts would create the social confusion, disorder, and panic that would entirely demolish the state and its institutions. In a famous passage he exhorted the masses to "trust in the Eternal Spirit which only destroys because it is the inexhaustible and eternally creating source of all life. The urge to destroy is also a creative urge!" 22 Bakunin's hostility to the present order was so uncompromising that he believed that total destruction was a purifying act—the creative first step toward liberation.

12

The Early Years (1841-1871)

Another side of Bakunin's personality and theory that set him apart from other anarchists and that seemed starkly at odds with his selfproclaimed libertarianism was his passion for authority. Constitutionally dependent on his network of secret societies, which he claimed would provide the nucleus of a revolutionary dictatorship, Bakunin believed that the realization of liberty through the destruction of the existing order justified a revolutionary conspiratorial society in order to direct the revolution skillfully and to guard the new postrevolutionary society against any revival of state authority. In essence, his theory provided for the transferal of coercive political power from an official institution to a secret organization. There was an inherent authoritarianism—even Jacobinism—in his thought, just as there was an inherent anarchism. This explosive mixture probably reflected his complex personality (E. H. Carr writes of his impulsive and destructive passions) and also the peculiar context of romantic idealism and autocratic despotism within which the Russian intelligentsia developed. 23 The divergent, contradictory orientations of Bakunin's thought help explain the qualified attraction his ideas had for French left-wing activists like Malon. Malon and Bakunin probably met for the first time during the winter of 1868—69.24 Previous analysts have suggested that Malon had known Bakunin earlier and that Malon was close to some of Bakunin's secret organizations. James Guillaume, for example, in his well-known books on the First International, claimed that in 1867 Malon became a member of the Alliance de la démocratie sociale, a secret association created by Bakunin in Italy in 1864. 25 This secret organization was parallel with, but distinct from, a public organization known by the name Alliance internationale de la démocratie socialiste, created in late 1868 following a failed attempt by Bakunin to take control of the Ligue de la paix et de la liberté, a liberal democratic organization that was created to link a European-wide republican federation with world peace. In 1868-69, Bakunin's public organization requested admittance to the International, a move that is often interpreted as the first skirmish between Bakunin and Marx for control of the International; the request was denied by the General Council on 22 December 1868. Most commentators have followed Guillaume's lead and assumed that Malon was a member of one or another of these organizations. 26 Frequently cited is a 1870 letter from Bakunin to Charles Perron in which Bakunin attacks Malon for telling Albert Richard things that he

The Early Years (1841-1871)

13

had promised to keep secret. 27 However, Malon himself denied any formal connection. A letter Malon and Gustave Lefranfais sent to Laurent Verrycken in December 1871 states that Malon "knew Bakunin, but no entente was ever established between them." 28 And in 1872, Malon wrote to a friend: "At the beginning of 1869, when [the Alliance] was founded, I opposed it, and after some lively discussions we coldly separated ourselves from it." 29 He went on to say that he did this with no ill will toward Bakunin, whom he knew as "a man of merit, as a devoted friend, and as a loyal character." 30 When Malon and Bakunin did meet during the winter of 1868-69, they undoubtedly discussed their common goals and Bakunin's various organizations. But there is no evidence to confirm Guillaume's claim that Malon had formal connection with one or more of Bakunin's organizations. Indeed, given Malon's statements to the contrary, such an association seems unlikely. Malon explicitly stated, furthermore, that he had no contact with Bakunin between 1869 and 1872. 31 There seems, in fact, to have been a rapid falling-out between the two after their meeting during the winter of 1868-69. In a letter dated 28 May 1869, Malon complained to Richard that Bakunin took an unnecessarily dogmatic view concerning appropriate forms of workingclass organization. The phrasing of the letter is suggestive of more profound differences: I have always venerated the man [Bakunin], the old fighter, the indomitable revolutionary. I have attacked only the organizer who, not sufficiently taking into account the diversity of means rendered necessary by different epochs, traditions, forces, milieux, [and] the degree of civilization of different people, has wanted to engage young revolutionaries in a unique path with a despotic and uniform program. I have regretted that... he had not seen . . . that other horizons and other means of action are needed [emphasis added].32 By the end of the year Malon was stating categorically that he was "far from accepting the definition that Bakunin gives of revolution," and suggested that "instead of examining the people, as Proudhon wanted," Bakunin had "himself formulated a preconceived ideal and . . . shown that he [would] never forfeit it." 33 Malon specifically objected to Bakunin's insistence on violent uprising as the only path to socialism, and to his authoritarian tendencies— his desire to direct the movement himself through his secret conspiratorial organizations. Malon shows in these letters his own respect for

14

The Early Years (1841-1871)

the differing theoretical and tactical orientations of workers in different contexts, and his penchant for open and tolerant socialist organizations that avoid the dominating influence of one doctrine or one individual. He confided to Richard in April 1869: "I frequent all the parties, democratic, radical, Proudhonian, positivist, phalansteriens, collectivism . . . Fourierist cooperatists,. . . e t c . . . . I see everywhere men of good faith and that teaches me to be tolerant." 34 By the time Malon wrote this letter, he was distancing himself from all anarchists, complaining of their refusal to accept "the efficacy of a political revolution." 35 But it is significant that Malon generally was less drawn to Bakunin than to Proudhon, who was a more consistent antiauthoritarian, a more committed federalist, and less prone to calling for violent action at any cost. The contrast illuminates Malon's selective attraction to anarchist doctrine. THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL AND COLLECTIVISM More important than Malon's casual association with Bakunin was his alliance with the French branch of the International Workingmen's Association, which opened a tiny office in Paris on 8 January 1865. 36 Malon joined during the winter of 1865 and soon became one of the most active of the founding members. 37 He would walk from Puteaux to Paris to participate in the weekly meetings of the Paris bureau, where he met fellow activists like Eugène Varlin, Henri Tolain, Zéphrin Camélinat, and Antoine-Marie Bourdon. He belonged to the sous-commission attached to the Paris bureau of the IWMA and was one of the eleven representatives from Paris to attend the First Congress of the International in Geneva, 3—8 September 1866. As such, he was one of the signers of the Mémoire des délégués français?* The ideology of the militants in the Paris branch of the International was a mixture of socialist, syndical, and cooperative ideas. The unifying moral underpinning was a protest against the misery of the workers and a moral critique of the bourgeois-industrial society that perpetuated working-class poverty. Members of the International in the late 1860s tended to be ouvriériste, and they took seriously the phrase in the preamble to the statutes of the International stating that "the emancipation of workers ought to be the work of workers themselves." They viewed charity, at best, as a palliative. True emancipation would come only through social transformation, and to bring this about, it was

The Early Years (1841-1871)

15

necessary to establish not only civil liberties and political rights for all, but also working-class organizations. When the International was founded, many French militants, following Proudhon, embraced a traditional patriarchical view of the family and believed that it was the basic and most important social unit. Erosion of the traditional family was cause for concern, and one commonly cited indication of its decline was the increasing need for wives and mothers to work outside the home. This trend, the militants feared, would keep women from performing the fundamental homemaking duties of cooking, caring for infants, and educating children. Concern was sufficient for the French delegates to the 1866 Geneva Conference of the International to draft a statement of principle: From the physical, moral, and social point of view, the labor of women and children in factories must be energetically condemned in principle as one of the most pressing causes of the degeneration of the species and as one of the most powerful means of demoralization put in place by the capitalist caste.39

Malon signed this joint statement, but he seems in fact to have been among a minority that supported the rights of women and argued that sexual equality was a necessary part of the coming social transformation. In his private correspondence, he complained that his adversaries used the "objections of Proudhon" against him and that "Proudhonian residues" on this issue reinforced the backward stance of those who wished to deny the just demands of "women who want to be free." 40 The stance of socialists on the rights of women remained an issue of concern to Malon throughout the 1870s and 1880s. The most important institutions outside the family for French members of the International were worker-controlled organizations called chambres syndicales. These were descendants of resistance societies, which made demands on employers, and of cooperatives, which were run by the workers themselves. Both functions, it was assumed, could be carried out within the framework of the syndicat. Chambres syndicales and the International gained prominence in Paris during the late 1860s because of their association with a number of strikes, the most famous being the 1867 strike by Paris metalworkers and the 1868 strike by construction workers. On 14 November 1869, forty worker syndicats in Paris came together to form the Chambre fédérale des sociétés ouvrières de Paris; by the following spring, there were fifty-four member societies.

16

The Early Years (1841-1871)

The faith placed in worker-controlled organizations was closely tied to the general opposition to a centralized and authoritarian state. Since the early nineteenth century, many on the French Left had followed Henri de Saint-Simon's advice to focus on the administration of things instead of the government of persons. By the 1860s, such apolitical tendencies were reinforced by the apparent failure of democratic politics to yield social reform: the experiences on universal male suffrage during the Second Republic and the plebiscites during the Second Empire demonstrated how conservative the masses could be, and how socially reactionary the governments they supported. The resulting scorn for national politics was reinforced by the prestige of Proudhon and Bakunin, who attacked centralism, and by the experience of the Second Empire, which left little room for opposition politics. Except for a minority that included the followers of Louis-Auguste Blanqui, the French Left found it difficult to speak of the state without complaining of Imperial oppression. It would be anachronistic to make too much of the doctrinal divisions that existed within the French International during its early years, though they would become more important later. In the late 1860s, there was a convergence between different groups: mutualists like Tolain, who were close to the corporate notions of Proudhon; antiauthoritarian collectivists like Varlin, who favored a more comprehensive attack on the concept of private property; antiauthoritarian communists like Elisée Reclus, who was close to Bakunin and called for more militant social action; Blanquists like Emile Victor Duval and Victor Jaclard, who believed that a revolutionary seizure of political power was essential; and Marxists like Lafargue, who hoped to establish a Paris section on a firm Marxist basis. 41 The mutualists around Tolain and the antiauthoritarian collectivists around Varlin were more influential than the other groups, but all the active militants shared a great deal. They were able to work together for the implementation of social reform and worker education because they shared a common outrage, a common sense of impotence, and a common belief in the quasi-heroic moral virtues of workers. The activities of the International were hampered by the statutes of the penal code prohibiting professional organizations. These restrictions had been eased somewhat during the mid-1860s, when Napoleon III had hoped to rally workers to the Imperial regime and therefore had encouraged the associative movement among workers. But by 1868 it

The Early Years ( 1 8 4 1 - 1 8 7 1 )

17

had become apparent that these new organizations were retaining a proud autonomy immune to Imperial control, and the government responded by again enforcing restrictions. In March 1868, Tolain, FélixEugène Chemalé, Jean-Pierre Héligon, and some other prominent leaders of the Paris bureau of the International were arrested and fined for belonging to an unauthorized association. When the militants elected new leaders to replace their convicted comrades, Malon found himself directly confronting the public authorities for the first time. In March 1868, Malon was elected one of three corresponding secretaries of the Paris bureau of the International.42 On 22 May 1868, he was prosecuted for belonging to an unauthorized association of more than twenty persons and was sentenced by the Cour d'appel de Paris to three months in prison and a fine of 100 francs. His appeal on 24 June was denied, and subsequently he served his sentence in Sainte-Pélagie. In his defense he accused the judges of being members of "the party of order at any price, the party of stability," which enjoyed unearned wealth, while he characterized himself and his codefendants as members of "the reforming party, the socialist party," which suffered unnecessarily. He went on to suggest that "the party of order at any price" had "lost its moral superiority" and should join with the reforming party in bringing about social regeneration.43 Malon's treatment in prison was not harsh; he received the lenient care characteristically meted out to French political prisoners during these years. As he described it in a letter dated 22 July 1868, his stay was "monotonous, but not vexing."44 Relieved of the distractions of work and organizational activity, Malon diligently applied himself to his studies: from five in the morning until ten at night, he told a friend, he studied English, history, and the natural sciences.45 His historical "voyage across the ages" forced him to acknowledge the deep-seated nature of human jealousy and cruelty, but he nonetheless remained optimistic that his generation would be able to improve conditions, that progress could be made despite the tenacity of these negative human attributes.46 But he made clear in another letter that his readings on physics and science had convinced him that however firm his faith in progress, he could not envisage with any precision "the future organization of society."47 The period of persecution of workers' organizations by the government of Napoleon III corresponded with a notable increase in strikes and radical political agitation in France. Beginning in 1867 both the

18

The Early Years (1841-1871)

number of strikes and the number of workers on strike grew; by 1870 there were 116 strikes keeping 88,232 workers off the job. 48 During these same years, Radicals emerged as a political force (Léon Gambetta's 1869 Belleville program was the most famous case), and the International continued its attempts to organize workers. Malon's stay in Sainte-Pélagie did not completely isolate him from the activities of the International. While detained, he signed a protest against the resolution adopted at the Third Congress of the International in Brussels, 6—13 September 1868, stating that the republican peace organization Ligue de la paix et de la liberté had no reason to exist. The protest stated that no association, not even the International, had "the right to believe itself the sole expression of the aspirations of an epoch." 49 Imperial attempts to suppress the International led not only to the prosecution of prominent leaders like Malon, but also to a dispersion of members into numerous small sections. In Paris alone approximately thirty autonomous sections were organized during the following months, though they continued to have problems with the authorities. On 18 April 1870, these formed the Fédération des sections parisiennes de l'Association internationale des travailleurs. Malon left Sainte-Pélagie at the end of September 1868. so Upon his release from prison, he entered the most active organizational period of his life. Richard referred to Malon at this time as "the principal representative of the International in Paris." 51 This may be an exaggeration, considering the central role of Varlin and others, but Malon was one of the most active and visible Internationalists in France during the late 1860s. Subsequent commentators, looking over these years, have characterized Malon as "an instinctive organizer" and as "the commercial salesman of socialism." 52 He helped to set up new sections of the International and traveled widely to strengthen those already in place. 53 Malon also continued to work at various jobs, though about these there is very little information. His activities as a labor organizer at times made it difficult for him to find work because of blacklisting by employers. 54 In La Question sociale, published in 1876, Malon did mention that he had worked in a foundry in Pontoise during 1869. He remembered this particular job because he had injured his leg while stacking bars of iron and was still outraged seven years later that his employer had refused to pay him for a complete day of work, even

The Early Years (1841-1871)

19

though he was injured at 5:15 in the afternoon of a workday that usually ended at 6:30. 55 Malon's first newspaper articles, which were published during these years, expressed the socialist and Internationalist milieu within which he moved. 56 He considered, for example, the debates over the issue of collectivism that were current in the International, and he came to favor the position taken by the Belgian socialist César De Paepe, who called for a new synthesis of large and small property into collective property. The controversy over collectivism was a new phase in the ongoing debate about property. The concept of collectivism became popular in Europe only in the second half of the nineteenth century, though the term had appeared in France as early as 1835. 57 Its real history began when the issue of collectivism became central to the debates of the First International. 58 Though collectivism was an ideal that represented different things to different people, its core meaning was clear: a system of social organization founded on common ownership of the means of production. It marked for all the rejection of absolute private property, though there were differences on whether common ownership would include all property or only some property (like banks, railroads, and mines). In addition to disputes over what was to be collectivized, there were strong differences over the question of how such collectivized property was to be achieved: by revolution, by parliamentary action, or by working-class pressure? And, once achieved, would the means of production be administered by the state, by workers' syndicats, or by geographically defined entities like neighborhoods or towns? Finally, there were differences over whether collectivization would be restricted to the instruments of production, or whether products also ought to be collectively "owned" and distributed. At the congress of the International held in 1867 in Lausanne, a resolution (favored by the English and German delegates but opposed by the French) was passed calling for the public ownership of banks and transportation. This was followed by more widespread endorsement of collectivism, including the collectivization of land, at the following two congresses (in Brussels in 1868 and in Basel in 1869). There was disagreement over how such property was to be administered, but collectivism as a general principle was embraced by an overwhelming majority at these congresses. Some of the French delegates, like Tolain and Chemalé, never accepted any form of collectivism, arguing that it vio-

20

The Early Years (1841-1871)

lated their cooperative and Proudhonian principles—generally referred to as mutualism—but more common among the French was the attempt to reconcile mutualism and collectivism. Malon, for example, opposed what he saw as the individualist thrust of Proudhonian mutualism, but he shared the commitment to federalist organization.59 By the end of the 1860s, most French socialists associated with the International— Malon included—would have called themselves collectivists and would have seen this as complementing, not contradicting, their mutualism.60 The intellectual orientation of this collectivism was primarily Colinsian and anarchist, not Marxist. 61 After 1868 most of the French delegates voted readily for the transfer of banks, transportation, and land to "social ownership," but they continued to mistrust the role of the state. Their ultimate goal was a decentralized control of property, with administration by workers' cooperatives.62 The majority of French militants, in short, though collectivism still favored a federalist structure of society.63 Given the continuity of this orientation, it is misleading to characterize 1868-69 as "the definitive victory of collectivism over Proudhonism" unless one appreciates how federalist and mutualist— hence a-Marxist or pre-Marxist—this collectivism was.64 Indeed, for many collectivism was distinctively anti-Marxist. Guillaume, for example, who desired the abolition of the state and the elimination of hereditary individual property, considered himself a mutualist and a collectivist and wished to distinguish his position from the "authoritarian communism" of Marx. 65 And Lafargue apparently agreed with this anarchist or Bakuninist usage (and origin) of the term "collectivism." 66 Malon did not view collectivism as intimately tied to Marxism, but rather as a general goal about which all socialists could agree. In 1872 he defined the collectivism of the First International as the collective appropriation of land and of the instruments of labor and assumed that this was fully compatible with communal self-administration. He believed that the concept of collectivism, which had emerged from the divergent discussions of Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Emile Littré, Proudhon, and many others, was still in its infancy and had not yet found "its definitive formula." 67 Concerning the question of the appropriate means to achieve a collective society, Malon raised the notion of general revolution. He complained of the naive hopes of cooperatists who believed in the possibility of "peaceful revolution" and of Proudhonians who placed too much faith in associative action.68 Malon saw little benefit in participation in

The Early Years ( 1 8 4 1 - 1 8 7 1 )

21

elections under the Second Empire, and during the electoral campaign of 1869 he recommended abstention.69 He was opposed by Varlin, who succeeded in convincing the majority of Parisian Internationalists to present independent worker candidates in opposition to bourgeois candidates.70 (The result of this strategy was disappointing, and in the by-elections in November, socialists decided to support Henri Rochefort in his candidacy in Belleville rather than offer their own candidate.) Malon did not reject political action in principle, as did the French followers of Bakunin like André Bastelica in Marseille. In fact, early in 1870, he and Varlin both judged the Empire to be unstable and believed that the International needed to play a prominent political role in order to be in a strong public position in the event of a crisis. On 26 January 1870, Malon wrote to Richard: 1 am not at all in favor of the abstention of socialists in the presence of the movement that agitates Paris. The revolution inevitably advances. . . . To abstain in these conditions would be a disastrous line of conduct for us, in that it would abandon the movement to the direction of those interested only in politics [à la direction des politiques purs].71

Malon was skeptical concerning the efficacy of strikes, which were much in the news during 1869 because of the bloody repression of striking workers by the Imperial government.72 On 1 January 1870, Malon and other members of the Parisian commission of the International published an address in response to an appeal from striking German workers. This address declared that strikes were "an impotent remedy for the amelioration of the workers' situation"; what was needed instead was "a radical transformation of our social state." 73 In spite of his skepticism, Malon became involved in mobilizing support during January and March 1870 for the striking miners in the Schneider works at Le Creusot, and traveled to the scene of the strike.74 Though not an advocate of strikes, he recognized the inequities that caused them and sympathized with workers who resorted to them.75 He signed, along with nine other members of the International, a declaration recommending organization and propaganda, but imploring the striking workers in Le Creusot not to take up arms because "the moment seems not yet to have arrived for decisive and immediate action." 76 But if the time for revolutionary action had not arrived, Malon believed that it was fast approaching. In April he printed an article in La Marseillaise warning the bourgeoisie that "the time is not

22

The Early Years ( 1 8 4 1 - 1 8 7 1 )

far off when the great revolutionary sea will submerge the last of your edifices of reaction; the time is not far off when humanity will celebrate the deliverance of the last of the poor." 7 7 And he wrote a friend that while "peaceful revolution" was important in the formation of "public opinion," the true resolution of social problems would come only with "the true revolution." 78 Malon came to moderate his disapproval of strikes, realizing their importance as educational instruments. In a public letter published in April 1870 in L'Internationale he lamented the painful failure of the strike of the Schneider workers but consoled himself that workers had "acquired the sentiment of solidarity and liberty." He assured the workers that while they were momentarily overwhelmed by force, they "representfed] justice and solidarity." "The future," he declared, "belongs to us." 7 9 In another public letter, printed in Le Siècle on 11 June 1870, Malon defended the right of association and his adherence to the International. He suggested that the present Civil Code was "an insult to the working class" and that it was necessary to violate article 291 of the code, which prohibited extended associations.80 His insistence on the importance of such associations was connected with his perception of their instrumental role in the growing radicalism of workers. From Le Creusot, he wrote to Amédée Combault: I implore you to believe . . . that this province is quite prepared for the social revolution. One does not concern oneself here with the plebiscite, even less with parliamentary debates; when the miners ask if there is news from Paris, they simply ask: "Has the Republic been proclaimed?" 81

Another indication of the increasing militancy of Malon and his Internationalist colleagues was their opposition to the government plebiscite of 8 May 1870. Even Varlin now believed that it was necessary for workers "to disabuse themselves of the representative system" of the Second Empire.82 In what at the time must have been viewed as impotent intransigence, the International advocated abstention or the casting of a blank ballot and called for the creation of a democratic and socialist republic. In response, Napoleon III stepped up repression of the socialist opposition on the eve of the plebiscite; he subsequently received an overwhelming vote of confidence.83 On 30 April, Malon was arrested for conspiring to overthrow the Empire, and on 9 July, he and six other leaders of the International were fined and condemned to one year in prison.84 The court also declared

The Early Years (1841-1871)

23

that the Parisian organization of the International was dissolved. Malon was confined to the same cell in Saint-Pélagie he had occupied two years earlier, and he complained: "The forced inactivity to which I am submitted bores me to death." 85 While in prison, Malon again devoted his time to study, and he composed his only surviving poem, "La Grève des mineurs," which dramatically detailed the grievances of the miners in Le Creusot. 86 THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR AND THE SIEGE OF PARIS On 19 July 1870, Napoleon blundered into the Franco-Prussian War, and socialists were forced to weigh their patriotism against their working-class internationalism. Even before hostilities began, Malon signed, as a representative of the International from the section of Batignolles, a manifesto condemning war that was addressed to the workers of all countries. 87 But by late August he was rethinking his stance, and in a letter written from prison, he reflected on his growing patriotism: This series of ordeals and humiliations that France is undergoing moves me profoundly, and I sense at this moment that I love my country passionately. I consider those who are defending the capital of the Revolution against the Germans are performing a glorious act. If, as everyone foresees, Paris is a republic when the Prussians lay siege to it, I am positively resolved to demand my freedom and a rifle. 88

After the proclamation of the Republic on 4 September, Malon rallied to the defense of the patrie against the Prussian armies and bid France to set once again a progressive example for Europe and the world. He praised the Paris working class for working with energy to combat "the [foreign] danger facing the country." 89 The fast pace of political change caused by the war cut short Malon's incarceration; with the fall of the Empire, Gambetta, as minister of the interior in the Government of National Defense, ordered the release of political prisoners. On 5 September, Malon walked out of La Maison correctionnelle de Beauvais (Oise)—where he had been transferred on 28 August—and returned to Paris to enroll in the 91st Battalion of the National Guard and to resume his activities in the International. 90 On the eve of the war, there were in Paris about 1,200 enrolled members of the International. In addition, there were many sympathizers, and numerous worker organizations that were affiliated more or less directly

24

The Early Years (1841-1871)

with the International. 91 Despite assessments to the contrary by Marx and the London General Council, the Parisian federation of the International continued to be an important force during the turmoil of the following year. 92 Socialists like Malon were disappointed that a more radical republican government had not been formed on 4 September, but at least initially they agreed to work with the Government of National Defense, which they considered to be a marked advance over the Imperial government of Louis-Napoleon. This decision was reinforced by the threat to the new Republic by the Prussian armies, especially following 18 September, when Paris came under siege. It was necessary to give the protection of the Republic priority—at least temporarily—over the struggle for the social republic. Malon and other socialists, however, were unhappy with the moderate predisposition of the Government of National Defense toward defense and the social question, and politics within Paris during the next few months was dominated by the growing opposition between the government and the radicals on the Left. One manifestation of this growing strain was the active participation of workers and socialists in the creation of comités de vigilance, set up in the neighborhoods of Paris for republican solidarity and national defense. 93 These vigilance committees had broad republican support, moderate and radical, but they were controlled by the Left and were intended to serve as autonomous administrative bodies outside the direct control of the government. On 13 September, these committees elected the Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements to coordinate their activities. The Central Committee made increasing demands on the Government of National Defense as the siege continued. 94 Malon became active in the deliberations of the International and the Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements, to which he was elected. During the early months of the Republic he, Henri Bachruch, and Varlin—in the name of the Parisian Federal Council of the International—signed a circular calling national defense "the most important thing at the present time" and threatening to establish by revolutionary means "the foundations of egalitarian society" after the invasion had been successfully repulsed. In October and November the tension between Malon and his socialist companions and the Government of National Defense increased because of divergent positions on two fundamental issues: defense and

The Early Years (1841-1871)

25

democratization. On the issue of defense, many Parisians suspected rightly that the government was more interested in securing a capitulative peace than in continuing the war. This suspicion, which boiled over into demonstrations on 5 and 31 October 1870 and 22 January 1871, intensified when the armistice was announced on 28 January 1871. Added to this was the belief among militants on the Left that the Government of National Defense was reluctant to support municipal elections or to take other progressive steps to introduce a truly social republic. In mid-September, the Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements was calling for elections of a municipal council, the abolition of the Prefecture of Police, the election of judges, and the elimination of all restrictions on the rights of press and association. 95 Division within the Parisian federation of the International complicated the coordination of criticism and action against the government. 96 One faction wished to continue to cooperate with the government and to participate actively in the comités de vigilance; the distinctive contribution of the International within this all-encompassing defense of la patrie would be its focus on social and economic issues. Opposed to this group was the more militant faction—including Malon, Varlin, Léo Frankel, Bachruch, Jules Hamet, and F. Mangold, among others—which wished to endow the International with a specific political program and to delineate clearly the demands appropriate for specific situations. The new demands of this faction issued from a growing disenchantment with the Government of National Defense, which had failed to effect fundamental political and social reform, and from a swelling discontent with the moderate stance of the vigilance committees. These militants of "the new politics" took a firm stand in October against the joining of the International with the politics of the government or the actions of the comités, and in November they issued a declaration that articulated their goals. 97 They demanded immediate reforms, including the election of a municipal council for Paris made up of mandataires, the suppression of the budget des cultes and clerical education, the suppression of the Prefecture of Police, and the immediate abrogation of all laws that prohibited the free exercise of the rights of reunion, association, and press. For the longer term, they called for the "pacific solution" of the social issues of credit, exchange, education, taxes, the organization of work, public services, the army, and so forth. The goal was a "Workers' and Peasants' Republic" based on the principles of equality and justice and organized as a federation of socialist

26

The Early Years (1841-1871)

communes. Ultimately they wanted "the land to go to the peasant who cultivates it, the mine to go to the miner who exploits it, the factory to go to the worker who makes it prosper." 98 Malon's activity at this time was not limited to the International and the Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements. In the municipal elections of 5 - 7 November, he was chosen deputy mayor of Batignolles, an office that gave him considerable power in the 17th arrondissement." In some respects he was more in control of administration than the mayor of Batignolles, François Favre. Favre (no relation to Jules Favre) later confessed: "A very large number of men belonging to the International began to be introduced into all the services. I would throw them out one door, and they would come back in by another." 100 Malon used his local power to provide an environment conducive to social activity. Under the leadership of the feminist André Léo a mutual aid society, La Solidarité, drew up a list of the needy in the 17th arrondissement and began to distribute a daily allowance. A municipal cooperative restaurant, La Marmite, was established in the 17th arrondissement, and a workshop to make uniforms was created that employed 500 women. 101 Malon's neighborhood power did not translate into citywide power, however. The Government of National Defense generally allowed the maires a relatively free hand in the administration of their individual arrondissements, but it kept local officials from directly influencing the formulation of government policy or the conduct of the war. Malon balanced municipal duties with his labor on the Parisian Federal Council of the International. Between November 1870 and January 1871, he was—in the words of Jacques Rougerie—one of "the most faithful pillars." 102 Malon's section of the International in Batignolles was apparently one of the most vital. "Little by little," a police report states, "the principal members of the International are grouping themselves and living in Batignolles at the town hall, where one of their own, Malon, is adjunct-mayor."103 By the end of 1870, Batignolles had become a refuge for militant Internationalists in Paris, for men like Louis Henri Chalain, Combault, Camille Langevin, Mangold, and Varlin. The Batignolles section of the International launched a paper in early 1871, La République des travailleurs, which published six issues between 10 January and 4 February. The paper called for the establishment of a "Republic of Workers" in which everyone would enjoy equal opportunities for the development of their capabilities. It also called on

The Early Years (1841-1871)

27

workers to persevere in the external struggle to defend the Republic while continuing the internal struggle for social justice. 104 Malon was most influential through such organizational activities and through his writings, though his effectiveness as a speaker was limited due to his lifelong stutter. 105 Edmond Lepelletier gave the following portrait of Malon in 1871: He was a theoretician and a thinker, rather than a man of action. His stern and irregular appearance, his clumsy bearing, his almost continuous silence, gave him little authority over the crowds. But he possessed an incontestable influence as a philosopher of socialism, as a propagandist of the ideas of working-class emancipation. . . . Benoît Malon was a mild-mannered man, having the conciliating allure, the apparent strictness, that the practice of philosophy gives, but within him burned the flame of an exclusively working-class passion. 106

Malon's opposition to the government was sufficiently intense for him to sign the affiche rouge of 6 January 1871, calling on the people of Paris to denounce the vacillation, inertia, and treasonous behavior of the government of 4 September. 107 And he participated in the uprising of 22 January at the Hôtel de Ville in order to protest the announcement of the imminent capitulation. 108 On the other hand, he seemed to embrace reconciliation with other republican groups for the elections for the National Assembly that were to take place after the armistice, on 8 February 1871. Malon himself was a candidate, and he received the support of both moderate republican and revolutionary socialist organizations. He enjoyed the support of the Left and was one of forty-three revolutionary socialists recommended for election to the National Assembly by the International, by the Chambre fédérale des sociétés ouvrières, and by the Comité des vingt arrondissements. Surprisingly, Malon also enjoyed the support of more moderate groups like the Alliance républicaine, the Union républicaine, and the Défenseurs de la République, which formed a joint list with the Batignolles, Ternes, and Vaugirard sections of the International. The process by which these lists were created is obscure, but there appears to have been some disagreement between the Parisian Federal Council of the International (which did not endorse the more moderate list on which Malon's name appeared) and the various Parisian sections. Malon's role in these deliberations is not clear. 109 Malon himself benefited from the support of both groups, for he was elected as a deputy from Paris, receiving 117,483 votes in the Seine

28

The Early Years (1841-1871)

region. Socialists supported exclusively by the revolutionary socialist groups failed to be elected, which kept Varlin, Lefrançais, Arthur Arnould, Blanqui, Albert Theisz, Louis-Jean Pindy, and others out of the Assembly. Clearly, the majority of Parisian electors in February 1871 were proponents of a nationalistic, moderate republicanism that eschewed radical action. To assume his duties in the National Assembly, which opened 12 February, Malon traveled to the temporary seat of government in Bordeaux. He found himself in a very conservative Assembly, in which, because of the rural vote, Legitimist and Orleanist notables were in the clear majority—they had 400 seats, versus 30 Bonapartist seats and 200 republican seats. Malon's socialism was starkly at odds with the conservative ideological disposition of most of the members of the Assembly. He had to endure the Assembly's refusal to allow Giuseppe Garibaldi to address them, even though this Italian republican had fought for France against the Prussians and had been elected deputy from Paris. He was witness to the palpable hatred of the majority for Paris and to their insensitivity concerning the desperate conditions among the people of the capital city following months of siege.110 But the basic difficulty was a fundamental difference between Malon and the majority over social policy. Though absent from Paris at the time, he no doubt sympathized with the resolutions concerning the vigilance committees adopted on 20 and 23 February. These stated the following: All members of the vigilance committees declare their allegiance to the revolutionary socialist party. They consequently demand and seek to achieve by every means the abolition of the privileges of the bourgeoisie, its elimination as a ruling caste, and the advent of the workers to political power. In a word, social equality: no more employers, no more proletariat, no more classes.111 Malon's career as a deputy proved to be a short one. On 1 March, the Assembly ratified the preliminary peace treaty negotiated by Adolphe Thiers, which stipulated the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine to the newly proclaimed German Empire, fixed an indemnity of 5 billion francs, and allowed 30,000 German soldiers to enter Paris. Malon voted with the opposition, and on 3 March he resigned, along with Gambetta, Arthur Ranc, Félix Pyat, Rochefort, and Victor Hugo, all elected from the Seine, and Gustave Tridon from the Côte-d'Or. 112 In his letter of resignation, Malon stated that he refused to countenance

The Early Years (1841-1871)

29

"dismembering France, destroying la patrie," but equally important was his aversion to the monarchist temper of the majority. 113 THE PARIS COMMUNE Malon returned to Paris on 17 March 1871, after a brief stay in Limoges to convalesce from a short illness, and attempted to make sense of Parisian politics during the "uncertain revolution" of this month. 114 Part of his initial anxiety concerned the role of the National Guard, which had become the focus of Parisian politics in the weeks after the armistice of 28 January. By late February, Paris was essentially under the control of the National Guard and its Central Committee. After the attempt of the Versailles army on 18 March to disarm Paris by hauling away the cannons cast in the city during the siege, and following Thiers's decision to pull all government officials out of Paris, the Central Committee found itself in unexpected control of the Hôtel de Ville. 115 At this juncture the potential conflict between the popularly elected municipal officials and the leaders of the National Guard came to the fore. Concern about the strength of the Central Committee of the National Guard, and their own position within this Committee, animated members of the International. Some militants worked hard to gain a voice within the National Guard, and when the Central Committee was reorganized on 3 March, Varlin, Emile Lacord, and Pindy of the International became members. They remained, however, a minority. When the General Assembly of the National Guard met on 15 March, members of the International comprised roughly one-fourth of the body; even in combination with their syndicalist compatriots, they constituted only about one-third. On the newly formed Central Committee, members of the International held sixteen of thirty-eight seats. 116 Malon's reservations about the role of the National Guard would not be shared by those who had worked to build an Internationalist group within it. In the days following le coup manqué du 18 mars, National Guard committees took control of the Hôtel de Ville, as well as the mairies in many arrondissements. In Malon's 17th arrondissement, the mairie was taken by the National Guard on the evening of 18 March. Malon and other elected officials—mayors, adjuncts, deputies—angrily objected to this displacement of popularly elected officials, and they gathered at the

30

The Early Years (1841-1871)

mairie of the 3d arrondissement to discuss a course of action. Some members of the Central Committee of the National Guard pressed for their arrest, but cooler heads prevailed, and an attempt at conciliation was made. At about eight in the evening of 19 May, a delegation of mayors and adjuncts (composed of Bonvalet, Jules-Alexandre Mottu, Georges Clemenceau, Jean-Baptiste Millière, Tolain, Frédéric Etienne Cournet, Lockroy, Malon, Jurat, Jaclard, and Léo Melliet) came to the Hôtel de Ville to negotiate with the Central Committee. The elected officials insisted that the Central Committee vacate the Hôtel de Ville, allowing the popularly elected officials to take over and open negotiations with the National Assembly at Versailles. When Clemenceau, who was then mayor of the 18th arrondissement, asked what the objectives of the Central Committee were, Varlin (an Internationalist, but also a member of the Central Committee) responded: We want a municipal council, but our demands do not stop there, and all those who are here know it well. We want the communal franchise for Paris, the suppression of the Prefecture of Police, the right of the National Guard to name all its officers, including its commander in chief, the total renunciation of lapsed rents above 500 francs, a proportional reduction for the others, an equitable law on bills that fall due; finally we demand that the army draw back twenty leagues from Paris.

The response of the elected officials came from Varlin's old comrade, Benoît Malon: I share the aspirations of Paris, and I also want all that which Varlin has formulated, but the [National] Assembly wants to accord nothing. Will it want even to listen to those who will present this ultimatum, while the Central Committee guards the Hôtel de Ville? If Paris puts its faith back into the hands of its legal representatives, there is a chance of obtaining a partial satisfaction. I do not believe that we will be able to make the Assembly pull back the army, but it will probably cede on the issue of an elected municipal council, on the bills and rents. Think about it. There is still time to find a pacific and acceptable political solution. 117

Malon sympathized with the desires of the leaders of the Central Committee and clearly disapproved of the actions of the National Assembly. But he feared a bloody civil war and saw the mediation of the popularly elected officials of Paris between the National Guard and the National Assembly as the best hope for a peaceful solution to the crisis. There was good reason for alarm at possible outbreaks of violence even without the intervention of the Versailles government, as the demonstration

The Early Years (1841-1871)

31

in the rue de la Paix on 22 March, in which at least a dozen among the crowd were killed, made clear. For a few hours during the night of 19-20 March, it appeared that the counsel of Malon and the other delegates would prevail. But in the morning of 20 March, the accord between the Central Committee and the delegation of elected officials failed. The Central Committee refused to relinquish control of the Hôtel de Ville; elected officials were forced to consider what further action to take. Some abandoned hope and left the city. Others valiantly continued to attempt some sort of conciliation between the National Assembly and the Central Committee. Still others chose to align themselves with the Central Committee and to prepare for the upcoming communal elections. Malon followed, in succession, the two latter paths. He continued for several days to believe that the elected officials must persevere and insist on their proper role. He objected, for example, when a local "republican committee" recognized by the Central Committee occupied the mairie of the 17th arrondissement on 22 March, and he joined Mayor François Favre in publishing a protest. 118 He was also part of the delegation from Paris that went on 23 March to Versailles to negotiate with the National Assembly. Their appearance created a commotion in the Assembly: those on the Left rose to salute Malon, Jaclard, and their colleagues with cries of "Vive la République!" while those on the Right tried to drown this out with cries of "Vive la France!" Unable to control the uproar, Jules Grévy suspended the session, and the Parisian delegation went home without having accomplished anything. It was the reluctance of the majority of the National Assembly to reach any sort of conciliation with Paris that finally forced Malon to the conclusion that he must choose between them: Thiers or Paris. As he recounted in a letter written in September 1872, after it became clear that "conciliation was impossible" he "rallied to the movement." 119 The same progression from initial opposition to the position of the Central Committee of the National Guard to final acceptance of the upcoming communal elections was made within the Parisian Federal Council of the International. Here the differences between Varlin and Malon were replayed. Malon and the majority of other members of the Parisian Federal Council were at first reluctant to cooperate with the Central Committee, but they voted on 23 March to take a conciliatory posture and issued a proclamation calling on workers to vote in the communal elections. 120

32

The Early Years (1841-1871)

The elections were duly held on 26 March. Malon was elected a member of the Commune representing the 17th arrondissement; he was one of at least twenty-three who belonged to the International. 121 In April, he served on the committee appointed to draw up a program for the Commune. Although Pierre Denis was the principal author of the resulting document—the so-called Declaration to the French People— there is no indication that Malon objected to its substance; in fact he reproduced it in full in his writings about the Commune. 122 The document is moderate, communalist, and Proudhonian in tone, and it states that the coming of the Commune marked "the end of the old governmental and clerical world, of militarism, of bureaucracy, of exploitation, of speculation, of monopolies, and of the privileges that have kept the proletariat in servitude and led the nation to misfortune and disaster." 123 Malon's inclination—similar to that of other members of the French labor movement—was to use the Commune to inaugurate some of the cooperative social reforms that had been central to socialist debates during the late 1860s and that shared so much with the associative socialism of the July Monarchy and the Second Republic. This vision of associative reform was the doctrinal centerpiece of the weekly paper of the Ivry and Bercy sections of the International, for which Malon wrote. This journal, La Révolution politique et sociale, was published by Gaston Buffier (pseudonym, Jules Nostag) and frequently called for the beginning of the reign of right and justice in which workers would prevail over idlers. 124 Malon's subsequent characterizations of the essence of the Commune always stressed its patriotic and socialist dimensions. In 1887, for example, he wrote: The Commune, produced by an explosion of patriotism, announced itself initially as being only the confirmation of union between energetic republicans and socialists united in order to save the honor, the independence, and the liberty of the country, and in order to throw France, delivered from Bismarck and from Thiers, from the foreigner and from the reaction, onto the path of economic transformations and social renewal. 125

At other times, he reproduced the address to French peasants from the Commune (written by Léo) that had been intended for distribution outside Paris by random balloon drop. This was one of the most clearly class-conscious documents of the Commune; its underlying thesis was

The Early Years (1841-1871)

33

that workers in the cities and workers in the countryside should unite in the struggle for social justice: Our interests are the same: we only want what you also want. The liberation that we demand is your own as well. Whether in the city or in the countryside, the important point is that there is insufficient food, clothing, shelter, and assistance for those who produce the world's wealth. An oppressor is an oppressor whether he be a big landowner or an industrialist. 126

This document characterized the objective of the Commune as the return to the worker of what was rightly his: that is, "the land to the farmer, the tools of production to the worker, work for all." Malon was in a position to make an impact on social legislation; in April 1871, he became a member of the Commission du travail et de l'échange. This committee, presided over by Frankel, was set up to "find ways of equalizing labor and the wages paid it," and it proceeded to introduce some of the Commune's most innovative reforms. It abolished the Empire's system of placeurs (employment agents) and the hated livrets de travail (work papers) and encouraged the town halls of each arrondissement to set up bourses locales du travail to art as employment exchanges.127 The committee's most famous action was probably the abolition of night work in bakeries, but more indicative of its cooperatist and socialist majority was the decision of 16 April to allow workers' associations to take over idle factories.128 About ten workers' syndicats formed to take advantage of this legislation, but only one enterprise, La Fonderie Brosse in the 15th arrondissement, was requisitioned.129 There were more radical proposals brought before the committee and supported by Malon—such as worker takeovers of "all the big factories of the monopolists"—but these were voted down.130 The Commission du travail et de l'échange attempted to persuade the Commune to accept other reforms, with varying degrees of success. On 28 April, it circulated a memorandum encouraging all public officials to purchase their supplies at a fair price from workers' cooperatives. Several days later, it received authorization from the Commune to supervise contracts to ensure that wages were not too low. On 1 May, there appeared in the Journal officiel a long report on pawnshops signed by Frankel, Chalain, Charles Longuet, Auguste Serraillier, Theisz, and Malon. Including a brief history of these institutions and a longer study of their economic and moral value, the report suggested that pawnshops should be liquidated and placed under the surveillance of the Com-

34

The Early Years (1841-1871)

mune. 131 There was also discussion of ways to ameliorate the condition of working women, and Frankel and Malon launched a proposal to organize women into cooperative workshops and sales shops. L'Union des femmes pour la défense de Paris et les soins aux blessés strongly supported the project, but before much could be accomplished, the endeavor was overwhelmed by events. Malon himself made other social proposals as a member of the Commune. On 24 April, he asked the Commune to allow apartments abandoned since 18 March to be used by those without shelter, the majority of whom were victims of the bombardment of Paris. The bill passed. Regardless of their success, these proposals indicate the continuing concern of the socialists with the organization of work and with an associative transformation of society that would eliminate the class of idle rich—les oisifs—and the exploitation of capital. They indicate, in addition, that an active governmental role was considered acceptable, as long as its purpose was to assist workers or protect the indigent. As Malon recalled in La Troisième Défaite de prolétariat français, his memoir about the Commune, he was a member of the "minority" in the government. 132 As such, he advocated federalist policies against the Jacobin majority and voted against the creation of a Committee of Public Safety on 1 May. In a published justification of his negative vote, Malon joined his name with others who opposed the creation of the committee in the following terms: We consider that the setting up of a Committee of Public Safety will have the essential effect of creating a dictatorial power that will in no way contribute to the strength of the Commune; That this institution will be in categorical opposition to the political aspirations of the mass of voters which the Commune represents; That consequently the creation of a dictatorship by the Commune would be a veritable usurpation of the sovereign rights of the people; We therefore vote against it. 1 3 3

As the situation in Paris began to deteriorate during early May, Malon became increasingly distressed at the actions of the Jacobin majority. During the debates following the fall of the fort of Issy on 9 May, for example, Malon was so disturbed by the extreme Jacobin machinations of Pyat that he shouted him down at a meeting, declaring: "You are the evil genius of the Commune. . . . It is your influence that is destroying the Commune; it is time your influence is done away with." 1 3 4 By mid-May, the split between the majority Jacobins and the

The Early Years (1841-1871)

35

"minority" in the Commune was irreparable, and the latter took their leave. In a letter dated 16 May 1871, Malon endorsed the declaration of those who withdrew from the Commune. This declaration stated: The Commune of Paris has abdicated its power into the hands of a dictatorship which it has entitled Committee of Public Safety. The majority of the Commune has voted itself no longer responsible.... Therefore we shall not sit on the Assembly. . . . We shall withdraw to our arrondissements.13i

In response to pleas from several quarters—including the International—not to split the Commune in its hour of need, the minority agreed to attend a later session on 21 May. 136 But the entry of the Versailles army into Paris made such internal divisions and rapprochements meaningless; no further meetings of the Commune were held, and members of the government joined their comrades on the barricades. The angry debates of these final days of the Commune left a legacy of strained relations in subsequent years. Malon, for example, recounted in 1872 how he was accused of "moderatism" at a club meeting in Batignolles by Chalain, another member of the Commune from the 17th arrondissement: Combault conveyed this accusaton [of Chalain] by demanding that I be shot, which was voted by acclamation. I arrived from the Hotel de Ville, went to the club, and said that the vote that had been made against me was ridiculous, that the people did not clearly perceive the nature of the communal revolution. I gave a theory of this revolution and ended by saying that I had no bodyguards, but that I did have two revolvers that would serve me well for the purposes of defense and that, besides, I was among those who knew how to die. I was furiously applauded and I left peacefully. Four days later, the Versaillais reentered Paris.137

The memory was all the more bitter because Chalain had become, by 1872, a confidant of Marx, and Malon suspected him of spreading false rumors and therefore making even more difficult the already thorny relations between Malon—by this time a member of the Jura Federation—and the London General Council of the International. After the entry of the Versaillais into Paris, Malon helped organize the defense of Batignolles. He went into hiding on 23 May, assisted by Ferdinand Buisson and his mother, who hid him with the concierge of a Protestant church. Numerous reports in Malon's file at the Paris Prefecture of Police indicate that the authorities continued an unsuc-

36

The Early Years (1841-1871)

cessful search for Malon during June 1871. 138 In mid-July he escaped from Paris by train, accompanied by a Mme. Ottin and using the passport of her son, Léon. He fled to Switzerland, and by 25 July, he was in Neuchâtel where he met Guillaume for the first time. 139 He then continued on to Geneva, where he wrote his personal memoirs of the activities and suppression of the Commune. MALON'S SOCIALISM: 1866-1871 It would be difficult to overestimate the degree to which the experience of the Commune informed the outlook of Malon's generation. To those in their late twenties, this experience clarified and hardened positions that had emerged during the debates within the First International in the late 1860s. The hope they had placed in nonmilitant cooperative action, for example—already waning by 1868—was utterly lost after the bloody experience of the Commune. They continued to view cooperatives sympathetically but realized their limited value in transforming society. The Commune also reinforced radical and revolutionary tendencies. The frustrations of the late 1860s had already made many socialists skeptical about the possibilities for peaceful change through the electoral process: Malon himself had opposed participation in the election of 1869, and by 1870 he was joined by the majority of the members of the International in advocating abstention in the plebiscite. He did not reject all politics (he had advocated participation in the Parisian elections of January 1870), but he assumed that even in the best of circumstances benefits would be limited. By the late 1860s, Internationalists like Malon believed that short-term concrete reforms could be achieved through existing institutions and electoral politics, but fundamental social transformation would require militant action such as strikes, and a truly just social regime remained unimaginable without a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie. The Commune seemed to confirm this stance. The experience of the Commune also reinforced a Manichean class vision of the world for this generation of socialists. In 1866-67 Malon had expressed hope that members of the bourgeois class would join workers in cooperative action to ameliorate the conditions of workers; the experience of the Commune shattered the hope for a broad-based social reform movement and replaced it with the ouvriériste belief that

The Early Years ( 1 8 4 1 - 1 8 7 1 )

37

workers had to rely on themselves. A bourgeoisie that could carry on "a nine years' Saint-Bartholomew's Day massacre" (Malon's later characterization of the repression of the Commune) to prolong its own selfish social ascendancy was unredeemable.140 Malon cited, in this regard, the report of an observer of the events during the semaine sanglante, who remarked that there was a jarring discrepancy between the surface politeness of the French bourgeoisie and its underlying cruelty.141 However, Malon did not believe that the Communards were above reproach. The richest source for his own immediate reaction to the Commune is his La Troisième Défaite du prolétariat français, which appeared in mid-November 1871 and in which he lamented that the participants in the Commune had been so lacking in political experience, had so frequently resorted to personal attacks on political opponents, and had been so prone to historical posturing: Too imbued with the Jacobin and theatrical side of the Great Revolution, the majority was naturally disposed to neglect realities, to take insufficient account of obstacles, to sacrifice too many principles . . . to the sovereignty of the goal, so dear to the authoritarian school. 1 4 2

As the final phrase of this quotation indicates, Malon's strongest disapproval was of the actions of the Blanquist and Jacobin majority of the Commune. He deplored the ascendancy of this group that wished to impose the Republic "from above," and perceived himself to be one of the group that respected communal autonomy and administrative decentralization and favored a federalist Republic arising "from below." Malon was an integral federalist, believing that local control of the economy needed to be paralleled by local political administration. One without the other, he argued, was destined to be ineffective: without political federalism, local economic decisions would be forever at the mercy of an interventionist central administration; without economic federalism, political federalism would remain impotent and eventually degenerate into centralism. It was on this issue of federalism that Malon's early attachment to the cooperatism of workers' associations bequeathed its most enduring legacy. Even after he embraced a new militancy, having relinquished his previous belief that peaceful cooperatives could transform society, he remained committed to the organizational federalism that was such an integral part of the French cooperative tradition. Although Malon always censured the Jacobin tradition, and in par-

38

The Early Years (1841-1871)

ticular the Communard Jacobins, he was in general looking for ways to bring socialists together. He was by nature a conciliator, who found elements of socialism in his readings and experiences, and much of his organizational and intellectual energy was spent in finding a common ground for all socialists. He reserved his strongest strictures both for the government of Thiers, which had sabotaged all attempts at conciliation and was bent on "destroying revolutionary Paris," and for the upper classes, which desired stability at any price: It is known that the governing class, just as the masters of slaves in antiquity, and just as the barons of the Middle Ages and slaveowners, affected to believe that anything is permitted in order to place the exploited masses in revolt back under the yoke. Consequently, when soldiers are faced with proletarians who demand their place in the sun, extermination is the rule.143 The Commune had demonstrated the strength of this idle class, which was prepared to subject the defeated workers to a reign of terror. While the Communards had revolutionary ardor and justice on their side, the Versaillais and their bourgeois allies had numbers, discipline, organization, and artillery. 144 The Commune was "the war of classes in all its horrors." 145 For Malon, the lesson of the Commune and the repression that followed was that between the bourgeoisie and the working class lay an unbridgeable chasm of experience and belief; he observed: "There is nothing in common between bourgeois liberalism and worker socialism." 146 Even after his return to France in 1880 Malon would continue to insist that no entente was possible between socialists and bourgeois radicals. The emancipation of workers could be achieved only by the actions of workers themselves. However radical they seemed, bourgeois politicians would always pull together to protect their common social interests. 147 The Commune had taught Malon that workers would have to fight for the fundamental change that alone could provide justice for themselves and for humanity. The Commune had also taught Malon that there were deep-seated differences among socialists on important issues like the role and organization of central authority. These would be the focus of his attention during the years of exile.

CHAPTER

TWO

The Years of Exile (1871-1880): André Léo, the Jura Fédération, and Italian Anarchism D se fait beaucoup de grandes actions dans les petites luttes. Il y a des bravoures opiniâtres et ignorées qui se défendent pied à pied dans l'ombre contre l'envahissement fatal des nécessités. Nobles et mystérieux triomphes qu'aucun regard ne voit, qu'aucune renommée ne paye, qu'aucune fanfare ne salue. La vie, le malheur, l'isolement, l'abandon, la pauvreté, sont des champs de bataille qui ont leurs héros; héros obscurs plus grands parfois que les héros illustres.1

EXILE The decade of the 1870s was not kind to French Communards. The repression of the Commune was bloody and severe, and the experiences of persecution, prison, and exile would forever mark the outlook of participants who survived. Malon eluded capture and therefore avoided certain incarceration, for on 30 September, 1872, the Sixth Council of War condemned Malon in absentia for "having played a role in the armed bands of the Commune." 2 He was sentenced to deportation and two years imprisonment in "a fortified enclosure," a sentence that he could avoid by remaining in exile. So for the next nine years he lived in Switzerland (Geneva, Neuchâtel, Lausanne, Lugano) and Italy (Chiasso, Milan, Cagliari, Palermo). Malon was one of approximately 200 exiles of the Commune who took up residence in Geneva during 1871. 3 Forced to observe French affairs de l'étranger, he devoted his immediate attention to writing a book about the event that loomed largest in his mind, the Commune. The result of his work was published in November 1871 as La Troisième Défaite du prolétariat français, discussed in chapter l . 4 Like many exiles, 39

40

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

Malon wrote his recollection and assessment with the passions of participation and the pains of exile uppermost in his mind. Stung by the false claims of adversaries of the Commune, he was anxious to put quickly before the public an accurate record of the Commune and of the horrors of its repression. Malon's companion, Mme. André Léo, wrote: I had to hide for two months to evade the butchers of Versailles with my health and my liberty. What s c e n e s ! . . . What horrors! Only the thought of speaking of these horrors, of denouncing them to human conscience consoled me with living after the death of so many martyrs. I begin here tomorrow this public accounting. I shall carry it to Geneva, to England, to wherever I am able to make myself heard.5

But for Malon it was not only a question of honoring departed martyrs and exposing the horrors of the semaine sanglante. He also wished to rehabilitate the Commune and to draw lessons for the future. His agenda for rehabilitation was to excoriate the bourgeoisie and the government of Versailles and to establish the essentially proletarian character of the Commune and the centrality of the social question. He believed the Commune should also have taught the Left to keep the bourgeoisie at arm's length, to avoid Jacobin and Blanquist centralization, and to pursue a vigorous program of federalist socialism. During the years of exile, Malon worked at various odd jobs to make ends meet, but the sheer quantity of his literary output suggests that he spent most of his time writing, translating, and editing.6 The number of journals with which he was associated is impressive. He wrote for La Révolution sociale of Geneva (April 1872) and was one of the principal correspondents for the Alliance in France (September 1873). As a result of his connection with the Jura Federation, he contributed articles to the Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne and to L'Almanack du peuple during 1872,1873, and 1874. He wrote for the Belgian paper Mirabeau (Verviers). In Italy, he collaborated with La Plebe (Milan) and II Povero (Palermo). In Lugano he founded Le Socialisme progressifwhich lasted from January to December 1878, and in Zurich in 1880 he edited the first series of La Revue socialiste. Exile seemed to stimulate his intellectual output. In addition to his history of the Commune, La Troisième Défaite du prolétariat français, he published Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises (1872), L'Internationale: Son histoire et ses principes (1872), Spartacus (1873), Socialismo, religione, famiglia, proprieta (in Italian, 1874), La Question so-

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

41

dale: Histoire critique de l'économie politique (1876), and Histoire du socialisme (1878), as well as translating Albert Schaeffle's Quintessence du socialisme (1879) and Ferdinand Lassalle's Capital et travail (1880). ANDRE LEO Before turning to Malon's works and the variety of contexts in which they were written, it is necessary to give some attention to Malon's relationship with the socialist and feminist writer André Léo. Though little is known of their relationship, it was clearly the principal romantic liaison of Malon's life. André Léo was born Léodile Béra in Lusignan (Vienne) during 1826, the oldest of five children. 7 Her father, Victore Léodile Béra, was a retired navy officer living on his property in Champagné Saint-Hilaire, close to Poitiers. In late 1851, she traveled with her father to Lausanne, where on 17 December she married the man with whom she had fallen in love, Philippe Grégoire Champseix. Champseix (b. 1817) was a disciple of the mid—nineteenth-century romantic socialist Pierre Leroux and had worked on various journals associated with Leroux during the 1840s—the Revue sociale and the Eclaireur in Boussac, Le Peuple in Limoges. Fearing persecution during the waning months of the Second Republic, Champseix had fled into exile. He took refuge in Lausanne, where he was named professor of French at the local collège. He married Léodile Béra, who two years later, in 1853, gave birth to twin boys: André and Léo. Several years later, the family moved to Geneva, where Grégoire Champseix worked on the liberal paper L'Espérance, and Léodile Béra Champseix began her writing career. Her first book, Une Vieille Fille, was published in Brussels in 1859 under the pseudonym André Léo, a name constructed from the first names of her two sons and apparently adopted to hide the fact that she was a female writer. The Champsieux returned to Paris following the general amnesty for proscrits of the Second Republic, and they took up residence in the Batignolles quarter. Here, in 1863, André Léo published her second novel, Un Mariage scandaleux, which was successful enough to be issued in a second edition. In December of the same year Grégoire Champseix died, leaving André Léo (as she was now publicly known) a widow with two young sons. During the next few years, Léo continued to write, but she also

42

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

became active in socialist and feminist circles. She published a novel, Le Divorce, in Le Siècle. In 1870, she brought out a volume called Légendes corréziennes in homage to the country of her husband. However, Léo gained prominence largely for her sociopolitical writings, in which she favored prevailing left-wing ideals of workers' associations and antiauthoritarian democracy. In 1867, she published several articles in the journal La Coopération that attacked liberalism, applauded education, and favored workers' associations. Workers' associations, she wrote, would advance economic justice and morality. They represented "a new order of relations," for, she argued, "the goal of association is not only well-being: it places members under the obligation to be just; it necessarily raises the moral level."8 Between February and April 1869, Léo made similar appeals in L'Egalité, with which she was briefly associated. She was especially critical of the disparity between "the abundance of idlers" and the misery of the working class: A pretended order that admits suffering as the condition of what one calls peace is only disorder. There is no economic science, however profound, that is able to reduce to nothing the protest of the most humble workers, who demand with feeling their right to well-being, education, and the leisure necessary for all moral and intelligent creatures.9 What distinguished Léo's position from that of many others on the Left was her particular concern for peasants and for women. She attempted in 1870—along with Paul Lacombe, J. Toussaint, and Elisée Reclus—to launch a journal addressed to peasants entitled L'Agriculteur. Its prospectus called for a dissipation of the prejudices that prevented all workers, urban and rural alike, from recognizing their common interests. 10 Even more prominent was Léo's feminism. She was one of the thirteen original members—along with Elie Reclus and Marthe Noémi Reclus—of the Société de la revendication des droits de la femme, founded in 1868. The statutes specified that the object of this society was to institute schools for the daughters of members of the society and, more generally, to work for "the legal recognition of the rights of women." 11 André Léo and Benoît Malon met for the first time in June 1868; she was forty-two, he was twenty-seven. Their meeting corresponded chronologically with Malon's prosecution and imprisonment for activities in

The Years of Exile ( 1 8 7 1 - 1 8 8 0 )

43

the International.12 His immediate infatuation was evident in the letters he wrote to Léo while incarcerated in Sainte-Pélagie.13 "I do not see the walls of my prison," he wrote to her, "when I rest my thoughts in the good fortune of those I love." 14 In June 1869, Malon wrote that her affection was "the dominant event of this period of [his] existence." 15 In 1870, Malon assured Léo that the past two years had been "the happiest and most complete years of [his] life." 16 During the turbulent period of the siege and the Commune, Léo appears to have been as active as Malon. In Batignolles, where Malon was adjunct mayor, she had a reputation as an orator at clubs and as an organizer for workers' and women's issues. She collaborated and helped direct La République des travailleurs, the journal of the Batignolles section of the International.17 She published an appeal to French peasants that argued that all property was the fruit of labor, and implored them to recognize that all workers had similar needs and goals. 18 She led a mutual aid society for the needy of Batignolles called La Solidarité. She founded, with Mme. Jaclard, a journal called La Sociale, which protested the excesses of the Central Committee of the National Guard and awakened readers to feminist issues. In an article published on 6 May 1871, for example, she recounted the heroism of nine female ambulancières, who faced not only the dangers of the fighting, but also the insulting prejudices of Communard officers.19 Two days later, she reminded readers of the instrumental role played by the women of Montmartre on 18 March 1871 and chastised the majority of republicans for refusing to recognize women as equals. "Many republicans," she lamented, have dethroned the Emperor and God . . . only to put themselves in their place. Naturally, in this design, subjects are needed. . . . Women ought no longer to obey priests; b u t . . . they should remain neutral and passive, under the direction of men. Only the identity of the confessor has changed. 20

Because of her support of the Commune, an arrest warrant was issued against Léo on 17 June 1871. She hid briefly in Montmartre, then escaped to Basel, where in late July she and Malon were reunited. Together, they proceeded to Neuchâtel.21 Malon went immediately on to Geneva; Léo stayed for a few days in the Jura to begin some conferences on the Commune. She then moved to Geneva, where she worked on a history of the Commune (which was unpublished).22 In this immediate post-Commune period, much of Léo's energy was de-

44

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

voted to keeping before the public the atrocities committed by the Versaillais during the repression of the Commune. She gave a spirited address, for example, to the fifth congress of the Ligue de la paix et de la liberté, which met in Lausanne in September 1871. 23 During the 1870s, Léo resumed writing novels, publishing these in serial form in republican papers like Le Siècle and La République française.24 But she continued her political writings as well, collaborating with Guesde's journal Le Reveil international in 1871 and, after this failed in October, with La Révolution sociale of Aristide Claris. It was in the latter journal that Léo attacked Marx and the London General Council of the International for conducting a campaign to centralize the International, and thereby to destroy the vigorous liberty resulting from the autonomy of sections and the plurality of ideological positions. In mid-1873 Malon and Léo married. "After more than six years of an intimate affection, after a union of almost three years," Léo wrote a friend, she and Malon publicly announced their union, though, as she put it to another friend, she feared the marriage would "fetter [Malon's] liberty." 25 They worked on numerous projects together, such as the planning of the journal Le Socialisme progressif, which appeared in 1878. But shortly after the journal began publication, they separated. The reasons for the separation remain unclear. In a letter to De Paepe on 13 April 1878, Malon wrote that he and Léo had separated two days earlier, explaining: "We were so different in habit, character, sentiments. . . . Our marriage was (on my part) an error that we have rigorously atoned for." 2 6 Léo, in her letters to friends, mentioned her desire to follow her son André to France or Italy, "where Benoît Malon is not able to follow," but wrote most about their differences of age. She reflected: "A union as disproportionate in age has no right to be eternal. . . . I consented to a union condemned by natural laws and without any future." 2 7 Guillaume has suggested that Malon and Léo separated because of some infidelities on Malon's part. 28 This is difficult to confirm, as Léo made no mention of any such liaisons in private letters to her friends, and at the time Guillaume made the allegation he was very critical of Malon in other ways. It is impossible to judge how Malon's socialism may have been affected by these years with Léo. It is safe to assume that she increased his sensitivity to feminist issues, and certainly the rigors of his exile were assuaged by their relationship. Perhaps most important, they shared a commitment to federalist socialism, which reinforced their joint oppo-

The Years of Exile ( 1 8 7 1 - 1 8 8 0 )

45

sition to the "authoritarian" actions of the London General Council of the International and which impelled them to side with the Jura Federation. THE JURA FEDERATION During the time that Malon was ruminating on the experience of the Commune and writing La Troisième Défaite du prolétariat français, he became embroiled in the disputes of the International. Like other escaping Communards, Malon had been aided by members of the International in Switzerland, and it was not long before he became active in the internal politics of the Fédération romande (the French-speaking Swiss federation of the International). He arrived, however, at a time of internal strife within the Fédération romande, which had split the Fédération into two rival organizations in April 1870. The first, composed of the sections of the Jura, Bern, and the canton of Neuchâtel, was strongly influenced by the anarchist ideas of Bakunin and was opposed to participation in political struggles. Generally referred to as the federalist or antiauthoritarian group, its nominal leader was Guillaume. The second group favored political struggle and was supported by Marx and the General Council of the International in London; it was strongest in Geneva and in the cantons of Vaud and Valais. 29 Refugees like Malon, who had been members of the International in France, joined the sections of the regions in which they had settled, though they did not necessarily agree with the agendas of these sections. Malon, for example, became a member of the Geneva section, but he was distressed by the provincial focus of its practical concerns and its refusal to study or consider important theoretical issues. He and Lefrançais wrote a letter to Verrycken that clearly articulated their uneasiness: Despite the liberty enjoyed by the Genevans, despite all of the means at their disposal—free press, freedom of reunion, of association—the International in reality has no intellectual existence here: neither reunions nor conferences nor discussions of principles. Most of the adherents are absolutely ignorant of the principles and goals of the International. Each contents himself with saying: " I am a member of the International!" But, again, nothing serious; the intelligent, disgusted, draw away or are excluded by the committees that, alone, govern and direct the sections, which meet at best once a month! 3 0

As Marc Vuilleumier has pointed out, the International in Switzerland,

46

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

concerned as it was with becoming integrated into the political life of the cantons, was simply a much more moderate organization than the International in France had been during the supercharged years of 1869-71. 3 1 Malon and his fellow exiles could hardly fail to draw the unflattering comparison. Malon himself was predisposed to favor an activist organization structured on federalist lines, and this was reinforced in July 1871, when Malon met Guillaume in Neuchâtel. Guillaume also favored a federalist or anarchist agenda, and a warm friendship quickly developed between the two men. Guillaume wrote to his wife: "I am enchanted with [Malon]. I have rarely encountered so sympathetic a man." 3 2 Malon and his compatriots did not immediately side with the antiauthoritarians of the Jura, however. Malon remained a member of the central Geneva section of the International, which was faithful to the London General Council, and did not become a member of the rival Geneva organization controlled by the disciples of Bakunin—the Geneva section of the Alliance internationale de la démocratie socialiste. But Malon and his friends were obviously unhappy with the stance of the leaders of the Geneva central section, and as relations deteriorated between the rival groups in the Fédération romande, they felt compelled to make a choice. The conflict came to a head in late 1871, when the London General Council attempted to assert decisive ideological and organizational control over the various sections of the International, in response to which the majority faction of the Fédération romande issued its famous Sonvillier Circular resisting the alleged usurpation of power by the General Council. The actions by the London General Council were partially in reaction to the creation, in September 1871, of a new organization in Geneva, the Section de propagande et d'action révolutionnaire socialiste. Joined in this organization were members of the now-dissolved Alliance internationale de la démocratie socialiste (men like Nicholas Joukovsky and Perron) and ex-Communards like Lefrançais and Ostyn. Malon was not a member but participated in the deliberations, encouraging new initiatives to preserve the unity of the International. 33 The Section de propagande was the rallying point for all those who were dissatisfied with the central Geneva section of the International and with the actions of the General Council in London. When the Section de propagande requested admission to the International, the General

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

47

Council in London refused it, and at the subsequent conference in London—controlled by the General Council—a resolution was passed that categorically prohibited "the formation of separatist groups, under the name of sections de propagande, etc., giving themselves special missions outside of the common goal pursued by all groups of the International." 34 It was also at the London Conference that the General Council proclaimed the centrality of politics for the fight for socialism and reinforced their own power vis-à-vis local federations. Malon initially hoped to avoid a rupture with the London General Council and for this reason had continued to participate in the deliberations of the central section in Geneva. But his sympathies were clearly against any "authoritarian organization," and relations were strained. 35 During the meeting of the Geneva section at the end of September, for example, there was a heated exchange between Malon and Nicolas Outine, who had recently returned from the London Conference. Guillaume tells us that in a meeting of the central s e c t i o n , . . . Malon critically questioned Outine— with whom he had been very closely tied previously—and vigorously reproached him. Outine, stunned by this unexpected attack, was completely flabbergasted and did not know how to respond. 36

Relations deteriorated further with the appearance during October in Geneva of a new weekly journal, La Révolution sociale, that was strongly critical of the actions of the London General Council and of the moderate stance of the Geneva central section. Directed by Claris, it included among its collaborators a number of French exiles: Arnould, Lefrançais, Guesde, Rozoua, and Louis Marchand, as well as Malon and Léo. The debate became increasingly acrimonious. On 2 November, for example, Léo printed an article entitled "How Honest, Intelligent, and Devoted Socialists Were Expelled from the International of Geneva," in which she traced the history of the Alliance and of its disputes with the Geneva sections and with the General Council in London, the latter dominated by "German and Bismarckian minds." A week later, she published a long article about the growing authoritarianism within the International. She confided to a friend: "We are waging here a campaign against the resolutions of the London Conference, which are unitaires and authoritarian, and against Karl Marx, the evil genius, the Bismarck of the International Association." 37 Though Malon's name does not appear on the Sonvillier Circular of

48

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

12 November 1871, which announced the formal establishment of the antiauthoritarian Jura Federation, he participated in the deliberations. And though he was not an official delegate of the Section de propagande, he clearly agreed with the actions of Joukovsky and Guesde, who were members, when they adhered to the Jura Federation. La Révolution sociale temporarily became the official organ of the new federation.38 When the central section of Geneva met on 23 November, Malon, Ostyn, Lefrançais, and Perrare again attacked the resolutions of the London Conference, and the deliberations became so heated that it was necessary to convoke a second session on 2 December. At this second meeting, a resolution was adopted that forced members to choose between the Fédération romande (which officially had been dissolved at the congress at Sonvillier) and the new Jura Federation. The supporters of the London General Council were clearly in control, and Malon and his friends retired with proclamations of their allegiance to the Jura Federation. Malon, as a result, was expelled from the "authoritarian" central Geneva section.39 The Jura Federation created its own journal in February 1872, the Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, to articulate its position vis-à-vis the London General Council and to coordinate the activities of sympathetic groups in other parts of Europe. At about the same time, Malon left Geneva for Neuchâtel, where he worked for a while as a basket maker. 40 His intellectual interests remained focused on the fortunes of socialism and the disputes within the International. He met the young Pierre Kropotkin. He continued to be active in the Jura Federation and was close to Lefrançais, Elisée Reclus, Pindy, and Brousse. On 19 May 1872, he represented the Neuchâtel section at the congress of the Jura Federation in Locle.41 He left Neuchâtel after a few months and settled in Chiasso in the Italian Alps.42 Malon saw the International as a loose umbrella organization for the coordination of the activities of workers of the world—a position he made clear in a long article he published during January 1872 in La République républicaine.43 In the article, Malon argued that the International had been organized from the bottom up and that initiative ought to continue to reside in "the universality of adherents and in the totality of groups." 44 The General Council should be limited to executing the resolutions enacted at general congresses, serving as a center of communication and propaganda between workers, and publicizing the location of the next congress meeting. No official doctrine should be

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

49

imposed: mutualists, collectivists, communists, positivists, Fourierists, and others should all be welcomed. Different regional federations, operating in different environments, would naturally take divergent stances on the issue of political action. Conciliatory in tone, this article nevertheless was in substance a criticism of perceived transgressions of the General Council. 45 In his personal correspondence of early 1872, Malon complained of the "excessive slanders" directed against himself and others by the "centralists," and he worried about the activity of the General Council. 46 At its inception, he wrote, the International had been animated by a "vague ideal" that allowed different groups to work together for their mutual benefit within a federal framework. But during 1870-71, "the General Council accustomed itself to speak as a directing committee, [and] it secretly overthrew the autonomy of the federations." By 1872, Malon went on, "the German element of the International" had "centralized... the organization that was originally federalist." He was deeply troubled by this development and was fearful that the resulting divisions within the International would cause a split. 47 The split came in September 1872 at the Hague Congress of the International. The Marxists won the decisive votes, which pitted the Marxists against the Bakuninists—or better, the authoritarians against the antiauthoritarians: the executive power of the General Council was reaffirmed; Bakunin and Guillaume were expelled from the organization. But Marx seemed to recognize that his control was not secure, and rather than take the chance of allowing the antiauthoritarians (or the Blanquists) to take charge, he pushed through a motion that moved the General Council to New York. For all practical purposes this was the end of the authoritarian International in Europe; the one attempt at a subsequent congress (in Geneva in 1873) was a pitiful affair that Marx himself characterized as "a fiasco."48 The antiauthoritarians, though losing the critical votes at the Hague Congress, in fact enjoyed the support of a majority of the overall membership of the International. Immediately following the Hague meeting, they organized a congress in Saint-Imier (September 1872), and here representatives of the Jura, Spanish, and Italian federations, joined by some French representatives, repudiated the actions voted in The Hague. The authority of the General Council was denied, and the autonomy and independence of sections was affirmed. In addition, the congress passed resolutions that called for the elimination of all political

50

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

power, even provisional revolutionary political power, and "rejected all compromise in order to achieve the accomplishment of the social revolution." 4 9 A year later, in September 1 8 7 3 , a congress calling itself the Sixth Congress of the International convened in Geneva and voted unanimously to abolish the General Council and to affirm the antiauthoritarian and federalist structure of the International. Malon's prominence in the dispute between the authoritarians and the antiauthoritarians led some Marxists to call for his expulsion from the International, accusing him of "actions having the goal of disorganizing the international society of workers." This accusation was considered at the meeting in The Hague, but Malon was not expelled from the International—although Bakunin and Guillaume were forced out for similar transgressions. 50 The fact that Malon was not expelled from the International reflected perhaps the conciliatory position he had adopted in the struggle between the London General Council and the antiauthoritarians of the Jura Federation. Though he clearly leaned toward the latter position, he had attempted to keep a foot in both camps. "Since my arrival in Switzerland," he wrote in August 1 8 7 2 , " I have not ceased preaching conciliation, which has led to being very badly treated by both camps: for the ones I have sold out to M a r x , for the others I am the agent of Bakunin [emphasis in the original]." 5 1 But, as his other letters make clear, his principal estrangement was from the "authoritarians who . . . treated [him] as an enemy." 5 2 The struggle left him more suspicious than ever of "jacobinisme." 5 3 Concerning the division within the International, Malon speculated that the traditions in England and Germany led socialists from these two countries to favor reform "from above," while the historical development of France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland led socialists from these countries to be anarchist—to be "joined naturally together by the term Commune." 5 4 Given these differing historical trajectories, Malon reasoned, a schism was bound to occur. But he was already dreaming of a future reconciliation: My conclusion is that one must not lament too much the historical event that is taking place. The necessities of the struggle will force the two branches to have intermittent relations. And before too long perhaps one will be able to bring about without Marxists and without Jurassiens a congress of conciliation [emphasis in the original].55 Malon's hope for conciliation helps explain why he never became an

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

51

active participant in the activities of the Saint-Imier International, which continued having meetings through 1877. He applauded the federalist resolutions emerging from the Saint-Imier meeting; but he was no doubt unhappy that it had also passed an antipolitical resolution declaring that "the destruction of every kind of political power is the first task of the proletariat." 56 Malon was always reluctant to embrace an anarchist resolution stating that in all instances political action was counterproductive. His move to Italy in mid-1872 corresponded chronologically with a conscious decision to distance himself from the internal struggles of the competing organizations. In his correspondence, he expressed fear that his personal intervention would only make worse the divisions that were "already too profound." He lamented his selfimposed "isolation," but decided that in the current context, he should bury himself in his intellectual pursuits.57 Malon's writings of these years reflected his continuing search for a common ground for socialist action. He believed that socialists must work together, which would demand a new element of tolerance among differing factions. His wide sympathy for the diverse movements is evident in all of his books, but it is particularly pronounced in the historical account of the formation of French socialism that he wrote at this time. Malon's Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises was published in 1872, but as he tells his readers, it was "begun in Bonapartist prisons and finished in exile." 58 The Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises is composed of chapters on the luminaries of French socialist thought since the Revolution—the Jacobins, "Gracchus" Babeuf, the Saint-Simonians, Fourierists, Leroux, Louis Blanc, Proudhon, and more—and it concludes with a laudatory chapter on the International. Each chapter contains a short exposition of the general nature of the principal figure or school, followed by extracts from texts, frequently accompanied by critical footnotes. The book is striking in its generally sympathetic treatment of all of the figures, considering Malon's reservations: he disliked the emphasis that the Jacobins and Babeuf had given to the state; he was critical of the "absolutism" of some of Saint-Simon's disciples and disagreed with their "historical fatalism" and their religiosity; he was unhappy with what he referred to as Charles Fourier's "whimsical classifications"; he believed that the Icarians had lost touch with reality when they made the decision to move to Nauwoo to build an isolated terrestrial paradise; he disagreed with Proudhon's reliance on contractual relations and

52

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

was repulsed by his theoretical justifications of the subordination of women. 59 But, on the whole, each thinker and school was treated with consideration and respect. A conscientious attempt was made to find what was positive and enduring in the thought of these predecessors. And Malon concluded with a panegyric to the ideals of socialism that these thinkers and movements illuminated: What are, in effect, the general ideas that become clear from all this theoretical elaboration and from these popular inspirations. Abolition of classes. Integral and professional education assured to each child. The instruments of labor, land, and tools returned to those who work. Work, the normal condition of man, will become better distributed and better rewarded, as well as obligatory for every able-bodied man, while the worker will have the right to the integral product of his labor, once social expenses are filled. Transformation of oppressive and parasitic political states into a vast and free federation, of industrial and agricultural groups, of communes, of regions, of nations, of continents, united by the great law of human solidarity.60 In contrast to this recommendation for tolerant cooperation among socialist factions, Malon counseled caution when dealing with other classes and suggested that the forced liquidation of the bourgeoisie would probably be needed. 61 The Commune had demonstrated to Malon and other socialists the insensitivity of the "middle classes" to the social issue and the impossibility of relying on them for the implementation of fundamental social reform. Workers would have to rely upon themselves. French socialists of this generation took such an ouvriériste stance for granted, and they frequently cited with approval the first line of the preamble of the Provisional Rules for the First International that stated that "the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working classes themselves." 62

ITALY: ANARCHISM VERSUS EXPERIMENTALISM One of the most important periods of the decade of exile was the years in Italy when Malon criticized anarchists and formulated an "experimental" socialist stance. Malon and Léo moved to Italy in June 1872, and for almost three years they lived in Chiasso and Milan. 63 Malon was expelled from the country in January 1876, but after roughly ten months in Lugano, he returned to Italy. 64 In all, Malon spent roughly

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

53

four of the five years between mid-1872 and mid-1877 in Italy, either on the peninsula or in Sicily and Sardinia. In Italy Malon enjoyed the prestige of having been a warrior of the Commune and a participant in the struggles of the International. He developed close relationships with several Italian socialists and, by all accounts, exerted considerable influence on the development of Italian socialism.65 He assisted Salvatore Ingegneros Napoletano, who founded the moderate 11 Povero in Palermo in 1874. During the same period, he was associated with Enrico Bignami's La Plebe, published in Lodi. La Plebe published a number of Malon's articles and, in 1875, Malon's book II Socialismo, suo passato, suo presente, suo avvenire. In the spring of 1875, Malon was in contact with Carlo Cafiero, who after passing through a Marxist phase had come to embrace the federalist insurrectionist strategy of Marx's libertarian opponents. Cafiero wrote to friends that Malon's travels in Italy would "stimulate the prompt and ample organization of the faithful." 66 By 1879, Malon was influencing activists like Andrea Costa who were turning toward reformist socialism. 67 In the ideological struggles among members of the Italian Left in the mid-1870s, Malon sided with those antiauthoritarian collectivists who rejected recourse to insurrection. He parted ways not only with the Marxists who followed the policies of the London General Council, but also with the Bakuninist insurrectionary faction, which Malon accused of failing to recognize the present impossibility of a revolutionary seizure of power. In the current Italian context, he insisted, such revolutionary spontaneity was only romantic utopianism. Malon did not deny that revolution would ultimately be needed, but in the short term he favored education, working-class organization, and electoral action to wrest reforms from the state. Malon's attempt to chart an independent course between the authoritarian political revolutionism of the London General Council and the antipolitical insurrectionism of the anarchists in Italy and Swizerland is evident in a letter he addressed to a meeting of the Jura Federation held on 18 March 1876 to commemorate the Paris Commune. 68 He harshly criticized the authoritarian position—which he now termed communist—that saw "in the state the highest and most powerful development of history" and wished "to avail itself of this same state in order to realize social equality." It was a mistake, Malon suggested, to assume that positive socioeconomic change could be imposed by a centralized

54

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

political institution like the state. Such an attempt would only perpetuate authoritarian political organizations and hierarchical socioeconomic relations. The appropriate goal, diametrically opposed to the communist one, was "to substitute for the authoritarian organization the federal organization; in other words, to replace the state by a federation of groups and of communes." Malon and the anarchists of the Jura Federation were in accord on this issue. But Malon also insisted that his collectivist stance needed to be distinguished from their position of collectivist anarchism. For example, while they all shared the desire to repress the authoritarian state—especially the army, the magistracy, and the central police— Malon argued that there were some "administrative" services like libraries, telegraphs, and observatories that should not be abolished. Furthermore, while most of these services were local, some were "regional, national, or continental" and needed some form of administrative structure. Although political centralization was anathema, some administrative centralization was necessary. Malon and the Jura Federation also differed over the way in which wealth was to be collectivized. Malon argued that there was a distinction between capital, which he defined as the values of production, and riches, or the "values of provision, of consumption, and of amenities [agrément]." According to Malon, capital ought to be collectivized and controlled by workers' associations. This would eliminate the idle class, promote economic growth and human solidarity, and guarantee the economic interests of the community. Riches, however, were to be individually owned in order to assure that "independence is guaranteed." This distinction between capital and richesses was crudely drawn, and it was pointedly criticized in the pages of the Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, but it indicates Malon's misgivings concerning a totally communal control of economic products.69 Finally, Malon carefully distinguished his own view of the appropriate means to the federalist future from that of the anarchist collectivists. These latter, according to Malon, called for a total abstention from all bourgeois politics in order to organize their forces for the revolutionary destruction of the state. Malon worried that this would leave the education of the agrarian and industrial masses in the hands of the bourgeois authorities and that it overlooked thé obvious fact that some political systems were more in the interest of workers than others. As he pointed out, "monarchy attacks and corrupts the living forces of a

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

55

nation, a tolerable republic develops them; there are always more socialists under a republic than under a monarchy." 70 Socialist action must be constant, Malon concluded, but it must in some sense be tailored to circumstances. Malon and the collectivist anarchists differed, therefore, over fundamental issues. On the issues of wealth, they disagreed on the criteria for distribution. On the issue of the suppression of the state, they disagreed on the distinction between political centralization and administrative centralization. And, on the issue of means, they disagreed on the currently appropriate action. Malon's willingness to accept political action, at least temporarily, has moved historians like Richard Hostetter to label Malon and his allies legalitarians. 71 Malon and his companions referred to their position as a practical "experimental" approach. 72 As Bignami put it, "experimentalism teaches . . . that the use of one method must not exclude others." 73 Malon himself was fond of stating that it was necessary to be "sometimes revolutionary [and] sometimes progressive according to the , . 7 1

circumstances. Malon's primary concern during the late 1870s was the insurrectionism of the Italian anarchists. He encouraged Tito Zanardelli and Lodovico Nabruzzi to make public their critical assessment of the 1874 insurrection, which resulted in the publication of their Almanacco del proletario per I'anno 1876. And after his explusion from Milan in January 1876, Malon helped to form an anti-Bakuninist organization in Lugano. At a meeting of the remaining twelve members of the Italian Federation held in Lugano on 14 April 1876, Malon denounced the "defects, errors, and deformed incomplete results" deriving from anarchist theory. He urged the Italians to reorganize the International on the basis of the original program of the International and, more specifically, to educate workers so that they could emancipate themselves. The anarchists, he charged, were the principal cause of the present divisions in the International, proponents of disagreements and promoters of the unfruitful agitation that for the past three or four years has disorganized and thinned out the forces of the socialist party, wasting its energy with unfruitful conflicts of personalities and interests. 75

Malon's criticism of the anarchists became even more heated in the wake of the uprisings led by Errico Malatesta in central and southern

56

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

Italy during 1876. In his view, such insurrectionary actions only revealed the unreality of the anarchist program: To act in such a manner one must be downright insane. N o one will question how much harm these parasites of labor, masquerading as Internationalists, have done; the veil has fallen. . . . Their intentions are anything but disinterested and modest: let the people be on guard against them, and let us work assiduously at propagating those principles that alone can lead to the social revolution.7*

This sharp disagreement over tactics led to new splits on the Left. Malon's close relationship with Guillaume, which had cooled after the Hague Congress, came to an end over this issue. 77 Guillaume and the Jura Bulletin defended the activists of the Italian insurrections during the mid-1870s and recommended the tactic of "propaganda by the deed." And despite tensions between Guillaume and Brousse and the Italian anarchists, they adopted a united public front against critics like Malon and Guesde. After March 1876, Guillaume claimed, Malon was no longer "the cunning and sly enemy that he had been, he became our declared enemy." 78 The Jura Bulletin went so far as to suggest that the staff of II Povero (with which Malon was associated) was working for the police. 79 The legacy of this split continued to color Guillaume's characterizations of Malon, even after the turn of the century. 80 Following his falling out with Guillaume, Malon moved closer to Guesde and collaborated with the paper L'Egalité. In addition, he created Le Socialisme progressif, which appeared throughout 1878. The French police files also indicate his association in 1879 with Le Travailleur de Genève, with La Commune libre (Montpellier), and with Le Prolétaire.81 Throughout this period, Malon continued in his efforts to devise a conciliatory path between Marxists and anarchists. When, for example, he met Costa in Lugano in July 1879, he advised Costa to follow Marx but not to neglect the idealistic factors in history. 82 Malon at times had positive things to say about the anarchists, granting that they envisaged the correct ends, but he found their means misguided. He noted: "We fought anarchic communism considered as capable of immediate realization, but we collectivists considered it the most splendid ideal the human genius has been able to conceive to the present [emphasis in the original]." 83 Malon's stance against the tactics of Italian anarchists, who advo-

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

57

cated insurrection and refused to countenance any political means, did not imply his belated embrace of the 1871-72 position of Marx and the London General Council. Marx had emphasized the imperative necessity of the struggle of the working class for political power by political means; he had insisted that—in words of the resolution adopted at the 1871 London Conference—"the economic and political movements were indissolubly united." 84 Malon took the position that politics was not always the correct route for workers to follow—indeed, ultimately a social revolution was necessary—but that some circumstances required that workers avail themselves of political means for secular gains in the short term. And he continued to object to the centralizing and authoritarian tendencies of Marxists. Malon's eclectic "experimental" approach thus set him apart from both the Bakuninists and the Marxists of the London General Council.

THE WRITINGS OF THE LATE 1870S Malon devoted much of his energy during the final years of the decade to disseminating his conciliatory idea of socialism. He was distressed over the factional divisions on the Left and despaired of the future: I believe that in this critical epoch, which pulls socialism between the exaggerated opportunism of some and the fanatical theories of others, and in which our generation finds itself confronted with a confusion of ideas and has lost its faith of a decade ago, we are able to render some great services by our serious practice, our sincere experimentalism, our theoretical tolerance I need to do something useful, otherwise nothing can keep me attached to this poor life, so bitter and so criminal. 85

Malon's most ambitious endeavor was to publish a journal whose program would be "experimentalist, tolerant, and more an inventory of social ideas than a dogmatic résumé." 86 This journal, Le Socialisme progressif, did in fact appear monthly from January through December 1878. It was published in Lugano, where Malon lived from September 1877 to July 1879, and was edited by Malon with the close assistance of Léo (until their separation in April). 87 The other principal associate was De Paepe, who wrote articles on economics and reviews of the socialist press in England, Germany, and the Flemish portions of Belgium.88 The journal consumed Malon's attention during late 1877 and dur-

58

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

ing 1878. 89 As early as January 1878, however, it was apparent that production costs were higher than expected, and many subscribers failed to send payment. 90 By July, the journal was in deep financial difficulty, and Malon was forced to take another job. 91 By the end of the year Le Socialisme progressif ceased publication. Savoring the intellectual freedom provided by a journal under his own control, Malon tried to launch another following his move to Zurich in July 1879. 92 This time he obtained financial backing and called the journal La Revue socialiste.93 It was also short-lived, appearing as a bimonthly between January and September 1880. 94 Malon's books during the late 1870s provided broad historical analyses of the central theoretical concerns of socialism. The first major work of these years was La Question sociale: Histoire critique de l'économie politique, published in Lugano in 1876. As the title suggests, this book discusses theories of political economy, with chapters on the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and others. Its purpose, Malon states in the preface, was to provide some understanding of the history and principles of political economy for the worker who did not have the time to search in libraries. He wished for the worker to learn how to arm himself against those (like the English political economists) who argued that misery was necessary and who condemned any reforms beyond the establishment of free exchange and the protection of some political liberties. On guard against such an "industrial theology," the worker-economist would be able to recognize what was scientific in political economy and utilize this scientific knowledge to search for a solution to the social question. 95 Given such a prolegomenon, there are few surprises in the judgments given in the text. Adam Smith, for example, is credited with being the first to understand precisely the creative power of work as the principal source of wealth and value and with furthering the analysis of the division of labor. He is commended for recognizing the potentially disruptive effects of industrial development and for suggesting a decent wage for workers and some limitations to mechanization. But despite these insights into the potential injustices of unfettered industrial development, the thrust of his system is to justify the status quo: What one is always able to reproach Smith for is having incorporated, into transitory reality, under the pretext of experimentalism and bad analyses, his immobile conceptions, enemies of all progress, of all reform, and having thus placed an arsenal of reaction at the disposal of the enemies of the people. 96

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

59

Subsequent political economists who had followed Smith's lead had less to recommend them, for they did not even offer suggestions for limiting the misfortunes and inequities caused by capitalist development. Jean-Baptiste Say, for example, suggested that evils and inequities simply existed, they were in the nature of things. 9 7 According to Malon, such economists unjustly glorified the existing state of affairs and called it natural; they wished to treat economics as a series of algebraic equations; they imagined that economics was a natural science. Instead, it must be recognized that economics was a social science, which meant that it was a "progressive, mobile, changing science, which touches art at many points. The "immobilism" of these economists, Malon maintained, must therefore be corrected by an inductive study of natural science and history. Such a study would teach us that humanity is progressive and that the present mental development of humanity has surpassed the actual social state. As a consequence of the observation of previous facts and of the laws of human evolution, one is able to conclude the possibility, even the inevitability, of a social renovation, which will be the realization of the mental renovation already made and which continues to take place under our eyes [emphasis in the original]. 99

The goal of such "social renovation" would be the development of the moral and physical well-being of all individuals. It would be a mistake to see Malon's scientism as a deterministic positivism or to exaggerate the influence of Comte. 1 0 0 Malon did believe that an understanding of history was essential for judging the type of action—revolutionary or reformist—called for in any particular context. And he did view history as generally evolutionary and progressive. But this did not add up to a materialistic determinism, for Malon believed that voluntaristic action, including education and reform, was essential for progress, and he argued that if such action was wanting, regression could occur. Malon observed to De Paepe: " W e have all more or less taken something [from the positivist method]." But that did not make either De Paepe or himself an "orthodox positivist." 1 0 1 In terms of specific reforms, Malon called for the collectivization of the means of production and the individualization of the means of enjoyment. On this issue, he diverged from those on the Left who called for the collectivization of the means of production and the collectiviza-

60

The Years of Exile ( 1 8 7 1 - 1 8 8 0 )

tion of the fruits of production. The so-called anarcho-communists, for example, distinguished themselves from the anarcho-collectivists by calling for the distribution of goods based on need rather than work. Products were collective property, at the free disposal of the members of society. For Malon, distribution was to be based on work, with the qualification that society should provide for the young, the disabled, and the elderly. Collectivization was to be brought about by practical reforms such as instituting a progressive tax, "industrializing" agriculture, and encouraging workers to learn various trades. In addition, class barriers must be broken down so that the morale and solidarity of workers could grow. Opposing the "capitalist employment of machines," Malon favored a collectivist application of machines, meaning that machines would be controlled by workers so that they would function for the profit of these workers. It was necessary to choose, in Malon's words, between "a new industrial servitude or associated labor." 102 In La Question sociale, Malon also considered the use of population theories by defenders of the status quo. Malthus, predictably, came under sharp attack for his view of the catastrophic disparity between population and economic growth. Malon insisted that the facts contradicted Malthus's simplistic formulas. In the previous century, for example, there had been a sixfold increase in European production, while there had been only a twofold increase in population; in France alone the discrepancy was even greater. Like other phenomena, according to Malon, population interacted with many other circumstances—geological, climatic, historical, political, and social. The unfortunate popularity of Malthus's theory could be explained by the self-serving message it provided the rich: enjoy without remorse the immense riches that God has given you and leave the poor, whom God has condemned, to their hunger.103 The theme that permeates La Question sociale is that industrialization has led to generous increases in overall wealth, but that such wealth has been inappropriately controlled by a small minority of the population at the expense of the majority and at the expense of other important social values. Malon insisted that a more equitable distribution of social riches was required: the means of production should be collectively owned and controlled; distribution should have some relation to effort and labor expended. Malon further emphasized that economics

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

61

was not the entire story; there were other values that must be encouraged and nurtured. He claimed that one of the fundamental errors of his time—perpetuated by classical economists like Ricardo as well as by socialists like Marx—was the idea that men, land, and money should be entirely subject to markets. To Malon, man was a social animal before he was an economic animal, and this meant that issues of solidarity with, and altruistic concern for, one's fellow man must not be mortgaged away in favor of some market-based analysis of economic gain. The classical economists of what Malon called l'école anglaise insisted with fanatical fervor on the necessity of free trade, the private ownership of the means of production, and a competitive labor market. They viewed man as an income-maximizing animal. In fact, according to Malon, men and women were social animals who should regain control of markets and of industry so that these might spiritually and materially benefit all. Under present social conditions, industrial progress aggravated the misery of the majority, while it filled the pockets of the idlers. Malon had much greater sympathy for those economic theorists who were concerned about gross social inequities. Though he criticized Jean Charles de Sismondi, for example, for being unable "to conceive of a state of property different from that which we have experienced," he commended him for his uneasiness about the unjust distribution of riches, observing that "he clarified in a singular manner all the questions that he touched." 104 And Malon praised Joseph Droz and Eugène Buret for suggesting that political economy ought to be the auxiliary of morality. 105 Malon felt that none of the humanitarians had gone far enough, however. The best of their number called for state intervention to correct inequities in the economy. But to realize true economic justice, more was needed: the present regime of property ownership must be replaced by one of collective property; in addition, political, religious, and moral reform was necessary.106 The goal of socialism was not simply the installation of a superior economic organization, nor was it simply the modification of political institutions; it also consisted of a moral reform of humanity. The most ambitious book that Malon wrote during these years was his monumental Histoire du socialisme, originally published in 1879, but subsequently reissued in expanded form. 1 0 7 It is an extensive

62

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

work—the final edition had nearly 1,600 pages—and Malon later admitted that it was "a premature and very defective compilation." 1 0 8 In it, Malon gave his most general definition of socialism to date: We want the convergence of means and efforts in the production of riches, in intellectual development and the moral perfection of humanity, while respecting the greatest degree of individual liberty possible. . . . We subordinate more and more our pure reasoning to scientific facts; we want to know and to understand before believing, all the while practicing the greatest tolerance in matters of religion and philosophy.... We want fraternity among all people and the future of the universal Republic Reserving our ideal of libertarian communism for the hoped-for time when all men are worthy of it, we want, by a series of financial, economic, educative, and political reforms, to gradually socialize the material and instruments of labor [emphasis in the original].109 In addition, Malon called for the progressive replacement of "the governmental idea" by " a social adminstration," the reform of the family in conformance with justice and democracy, and the substitution of a secular social morality for "theological commandments." He warned the bourgeoisie that because the "transformation" of society in a socialist direction "imposes itself" on modern societies, it must choose to introduce reforms gradually and peacefully or to face a revolution. 110 FERDINAND LASSALLE AND REFORMISM Malon's growing interest in moral reform and peaceful change was related to the dangers he saw in romantic revolutionism and the tactic of "propaganda by the deed." Such actions demonstrated with particular sharpness the Utopian and despotic implications of the anarchist cult of spontaneity. Malon's mistrust of insurrectionism had intensified in Italy, and it continued to permeate later publications. In 1880, for example, he chastised revolutionaries who were blind to context and who viewed revolution "as a dogma" instead of as a means to social justice. This illusion, he suggested, would be more likely to create martyrs on the bloody field of social struggle than to facilitate true social progress, which would emerge from struggling for change in the appropriate context. "Impatient revolutionaries," Malon noted, "are not able to hasten the revolution that advances on the old order." 1 1 1 One indication of the increasing reformism of Malon's position was his attraction to the ideas of Lassalle. 112 Lassalle ( 1 8 2 5 - 6 4 ) had ere-

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

63

ated the first German working-class socialist party, the Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein, in May 1863 and had been the chief theoretical rival of Marx in German socialist circles in the years following the collapse of socialist hopes after the revolutions of 1848. In 1880, Malon introduced and translated Lassalle's work Capital et travail,113 He was attracted to Lassalle's theoretical position on the importance of ethics and his belief in workers' corporations and universal suffrage. Lassalle and his followers had stressed the ethical mission of workers and the unjust nature of a laissez-faire economic system, which kept workers impoverished. Lassalle popularized the notion of the Iron Law of Wages, taken over more or less literally from Malthus and Ricardo, which claimed that the wages of labor under capitalism always hovered around the level of subsistence. Malon agreed that wages would remain hopelessly low for workers under capitalism, and he believed that socialism recommended itself over other socioeconomic systems because it was ethically just. Moreover, both Lassalle and Malon believed that the realization of socialism would result primarily from struggle and from altruistic acts of will, and only to a lesser extent from the accumulated weight of historical tendencies. 114 Lassalle's sociopolitical views also appealed to Malon. Lassalle believed that universal suffrage ought to be the central demand of workers because it would allow them, with their majority position, to make the power of the state subservient to the needs of workers, and indeed to the needs of the entire people. More specifically, the state could provide the credit and capital necessary for the creation of cooperative enterprises for workers, thus enabling them to dispense with capitalist employers. Malon recognized that there was nothing startlingly original in Lassalle's views. "In reality," he wrote in 1878, "Lassalle revealed to the world nothing truly new; he only popularized ideas borrowed from Louis Blanc, from Proudhon, from Rodbertus, and above all from Marx." 1 1 5 There is indeed, as G. D. H. Cole has pointed out, a remarkable similarity between the ideas of Lassalle and Blanc, who in the 1840s had demanded universal suffrage and state-financed "national workshops." 116 Both argued that worker-created cooperatives were important but alone were insufficient because workers could not generate sufficient capital to compete with capitalist industries. 117 The state was needed to initiate workers' associations, though the workers themselves would control and direct them. Lassalle argued that neither trade-union

64

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

activity nor voluntary cooperative activity could permanently improve the lot of workers because without state intervention wages would always return to subsistence levels. A capitalist economy sprinkled with workers' cooperatives would, at best, temporarily serve the interests of that minority of workers belonging to cooperatives. The Iron Law of Wages would cease to operate only if the state intervened; this was the preferred strategy for challenging the laissez-faire economy. Malon shared Lassalle's hopes that widespread producers' associations would "lead us to a new order founded on true property, that is to say, the epoch in which each will have rights over the product of his labor [emphasis in the original]." 118 After the mid-1860s he also shared Lassalle's belief that state assistance was essential to regulate the conditions of production in the workers' interest and to provide financial assistance for the establishment of workers' cooperatives. After the late 1860s, Malon took the stance that cooperatives alone, that is without state assistance, were insufficient. The strategic implications of this position changed, however, as political conditions changed. Under the Empire, Malon saw little hope of securing state aid; workers might participate in elections for propaganda purposes, but the real need was for them to organize in order to overthrow the state, which then, federalized and under their own control, could provide the regulative and financial function that he believed to be so important. Malon took a position at this time similar to that of anarchists and Marxists, who argued that Lassalle had compromised the workers' cause by being willing to go to any state—even the Prussian state controlled by Bismarck—to beg assistance. During the early 1870s, Malon recommended revolution against the state; electoral activity was useless beyond propaganda; cooperative activity alone would provide temporary benefits, but it would not lead to the social revolution without the overthrow of the bourgeois state. By the late 1870s, however, he took a more nuanced position, arguing essentially that short-term reforms were useful because they prepared the ground for the ultimate revolution. This stance left the door open for carefully controlled cooperation with existing political authorities; it was a flexible position based on the idea that even a state that was not controlled by workers might have a useful role to play. Similarly, electoral politics had more than a propaganda role because of this potential for useful reform, though ultimately a revolution was necessary to change the economy fundamentally so that cooperatives could

The Years of Exile (1871-1880)

65

produce true economic benefits. With this willingness to look to the political arena for reform, even before the revolution placed power in the hands of workers, Malon moved away from the anarchists' and from Marx's position concerning the state, and closer to Lassalle's. Malon no longer agreed with Marx's argument that all cooperation with bourgeois politicians before the revolution was useless. He no longer agreed with the anarchists that all action should be directed to the revolutionary overthrow of all state authority. There were conditions under which operating within the existing political system could be beneficial. During the early 1880s, Malon's support of reformism would grow, as increased opportunities for concrete social progress allayed residual fears of participating in a political process controlled by bourgeois groups. Malon would continue to articulate a flexible "experimental" position, one that still predicted the ultimate need for revolution, but increasingly he considered electoral politics a legitimate and important strategy and viewed concrete reforms as both possible and progressive. This more vigorous reformism emerged during the struggles between French Marxists and their Possibilist and Reformist adversaries.

CHAPTER

THREE

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left Malon m'a raconté plus tard comment Lafargue l'invita à déjeuner [en mars 1870] et, l'ayant présenté à sa femme, lui dit avec emphase: — C'est la fille de Karl Marx. — Karl Marx, dit Malon, un peu confus de ne pas connaître celui dont on lui pariait, je crois avoir entendu ce nom-là. N'est-ce pas un professeur allemand? — Mais non, c'est l'auteur du livre Das Kapital. Et Lafargue alla chercher le gros volume. — Vous ne connaissez pas ce livre-là? — Non. — Est-ce possible? Vous ne savez donc pas que c'est Karl Marx qui mène le Conseil général?1

SOCIALISM IN FRANCE DURING THE EARLY 1870S The bloody repression of the Commune decimated the ranks of the French Left and exacerbated social tensions. Ironically, the repression probably inclined moderate groups to support the new Republic, because it had demonstrated that it could defend order and protect the country against the excesses of Parisian radicalism. In the long term, even many on the Left would judge the survival of the conservative republic as a positive development; however tainted, it seemed preferable to a restoration of the monarchy or a return to a new Bonapartist interregnum. But during the 1870s, the Left remained in opposition, and those who had not been sent to prison or forced into exile were hostile and suspicious of the "Republic of the Dukes." This distrust had many roots, but its main cause was recent experience: the Commune, which had come to acquire in memory a moral unity that in reality it never had possessed; and the conservative stance of even republican 67

68

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

politicians, more interested in placating monarchists than in establishing civil and political rights for the lower classes, or instituting social programs. In this context, left-wing hostility to the state flourished, and the communalist and federalist orientation of French socialism—always a strong current—was reinforced. Malon and his comrades were in exile and therefore absent from the political struggles that attended the making of the Republic. Workers were also absent from active politics. The moderate republicans (the phrase refers here to all of the groups to the right of the Radicals—the Gambettists of the Republican Union, the moderates of the Republican Left, the reluctant republicans of the so-called Left Center) devoted more attention to the middle classes and to the peasants than to workers. In addition to the fact that industrial workers remained a minority (only 27.6 percent of the working population in 1876 was in industry), workers were viewed with distrust, often being (incorrectly) blamed for the outbreak of the Commune. As a result, the new regime retained repressive laws and passed new ones designed to restrict organized labor. The state of siege instituted during the Commune remained in effect until 4 April 1876 and clearly constrained meetings by workers. The press remained restricted until 29 July 1881. The Dufaure Law (14 March 1872), which made membership in the International a criminal offense, was not abrogated until the general bill on associations was passed in July 1901. Given the restrictions, it is striking how much continuity there was between the working-class organizations of the 1860s and those of the early 1870s. 2 As early as 1871, in the aftermath of the Commune, several workers' associations were reconstituted; and between January and October 1872, forty-five more associations reappeared in Paris alone. There was an additional spurt of growth in 1 8 7 5 - 7 6 . Many of these organizations were weaker than they had been under the Empire, due to the number of deaths, arrests, and exiles resulting from the war and the Commune, but they were surprisingly robust given the legal climate. With the assistance and financial support of some Radical politicians and newspapers, these labor organizations sent delegates to the Industral Exposition of Vienna (1873) and of Philadelphia (1875) and to the first National Labor Congress, which convened in Paris in September and October 1876. 3 The orientation of these labor organizations and of the participants in the Labor Congress of 1876 was similar to that of Jean-Joseph Bar-

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

69

beret, a former bakery worker who became a journalist in Paris at the end of the Second Empire. Writing in the newspaper Le Rappel, Barberet preached against violence and strikes in favor of a unionism that focused on workers' cooperatives and boards of arbitration (conseils des prud'hommes).4 Most organized workers during the early 1870s seem also to have opposed strikes, though they admitted the need for them in extreme cases.5 They too called for the creation of producers' and consumers' cooperatives, conseils des prud'hommes, and professional schools. The preferred vehicles for the creation of such institutions were chambres syndicates, organized and controlled by the workers themselves. The ultimate emancipation of the proletariat, it was argued, would be accomplished by replacing capitalism with a new federally organized society based on producers' and consumers' associations in which workers would be proprietors of the instruments of labor and would control the entire product of their effort. Patrons would be eliminated. Such a program, in many ways reminiscent of the ideas of Proudhon and early organizers of the French sections of the First International, was clearly articulated at the Labor Congress of 1876. Of utmost importance to labor representatives was the complete freedom of association, and they criticized the "bourgeois" Revolution of 1789 as expressed in the Le Chapelier Law of 1791. They also emphasized that the associative transformation they envisioned would result from the efforts of workers, without the assistance of the state or of private capitalists. The sense of class consciousness among workers seems to have grown in the late 1870s. One indication of this is that strikes in Paris increased in frequency and extent after the suppression of the Commune, and except for a brief period of decline in 1873 - 7 4 because of an economic downturn, they continued to occur with some regularity throughout the decade. 6 There is less evidence to indicate the doctrinal line workers embraced during this period. 7 But there were, at the post1876 congresses (the second congress met in Lyon in January-February 1878, the third in Marseille in October 1879), frequent expressions of worker solidarity. The most notable ideological transformations displayed at the congresses of 1878 and 1879 were the new critical stance toward cooperatives and the more favorable attitude toward strikes, as well as the embrace of the concept of collectivism, which will be considered in more detail below. Also a resolution was passed to organize a workers'

70

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

party. These changes in doctrine probably reflected the importance of non-Parisian workers in the growing movement, and perhaps the failure of the cooperative attempts in Paris by tailors, painters, and others. That the Republic was now secure also played a role: workers could feel more comfortable taking a critical and independent attitude toward all bourgeois politicians, even their sometime-supporters, the Radicals. But the most striking thing about the programs passed at these congresses was the high degree of ideological continuity. The immediate demands of the workers continued to be higher wages, a shorter workday, and better conditions; their long-term ideal continued to be the replacement of the capitalist regime of patrons versus workers with a society founded on the general confederation of cooperative workers' organizations. THE INTRODUCTION OF MARXISM The introduction of Marxism into France during the late nineteenth century and its influence on the French Left have received the attention of numerous scholars. Most agree that Marxist thought made a significant impact only after the Paris Commune of 1871 and that the central figures for its popular dissemination were the Guesdists, most notably Guesde himself, Lafargue, and Deville. Some scholars argue, however, that the only serious theoretical Marxism in France during the late nineteenth century developed outside of this group, in the writings of thinkers like Sorel, Jaurès, Lucien Herr, and Vaillant.8 The most radical proponent of this latter position, Michelle Perrot, suggests that Guesdism was so at variance with true Marxism that it actually created a resistance to the ideological penetration of the genuine article.9 The most common thesis concerning the growth of Marxism focuses on the National Labor Congress held in Marseille in 1879, the same congress that is often considered central to the success of the ideal of collectivism. Samuel Bernstein, for example, has argued that this congress and the following one, held in Le Havre in 1880, marked the success of "scientific socialism" over its rivals. By the end of the 1870s, he remarks, "Proudhon's influence on the organized labor movement was replaced by that of his rival, Karl Marx." 10 More recent analysts are less prone to see the late 1870s as such a definitive watershed, noting the continuing strength of indigenous strains of socialism and the continuing weakness of Marxism even in the proclamations of the most

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

71

vociferous advocates of Marxism. But it was certainly in the late 1870s that self-proclaimed followers of Marx began to make a significant contribution to labor politics and socialist thought. 11 The fact that Marxism did not become a significant voice on the Left in France before the end of the 1870s reflected the strength of distinctively French socialist and revolutionary traditions and the related ignorance of Hegelian and post-Hegelian thought. Malon, for example, devoted less than a paragraph to Marx in his 289-page book Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises, published in 1872. 12 Few thinkers in France were familiar with German philosophy; indeed, many did not read German (this was true of Guesde, Lafargue, and Sorel). To the extent that French intellectuals were familiar with any German thought, it was more likely that of Kant than that of Hegel. 13 Furthermore, most of Marx's and Engels's works were unavailable in French translation until the 1890s or even later. A French language edition of La Guerre civile en France, printed in 1872, was one of the first available, but this work about the Commune seems to have remained practically unknown in France before 1900, when a new translation by Charles Longuet appeared. 14 Sections of volume 1 of Capital also appeared in 1872; it was published as a single volume in 1875 and reissued in 1885. 15 Lafargue extracted "Socialisme utopique et socialisme scientifique" from Engels's Anti-Dùhring in 1880, publishing it first in La Revue socialiste and then as a brochure. Also in 1880, major parts of Marx's Misère de la philosophie were published in L'Egalité. This attack on Proudhon had originally been published in 1847, but its distribution at the time had been very restricted. The Manifeste du Parti communiste, which also had appeared in French before the 1848 June Days but had had no immediate influence, was newly translated by Laura Lafargue, appearing in L'Egalité in 1882 and then in Le Socialiste in 1885. Other works of Marx were not translated into French until the 1890s and later: Les Luttes de classes en France (1848-1850) (1891), Contribution à la critique de la philosophie du droit de Hegel (1895), Le 18 Brumaire de Louis Bonaparte (1900), Thèses sur Feuerbach (1901), Lettre sur le programme de Gotha (1901). Personal contact with Marx was important in the intellectual formation of some French socialists: Lafargue recounted his evening walks with Marx on Hampstead Heath during the late 1860s, and in 1868 he married Marx's daughter, Laura. 16 Vaillant and Brousse encountered Marx in London during their exile after the Commune. Guesde met

72

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

with Marx and Engels in May 1880 to draw up the Programme électoral des travailleurs socialistes. Others on the Left came into contact with Marx during the years of the First International, including Frankel, Serraillier, Theisz, and Elisabeth Dimitrieff. Contact with Marx and Engels through written correspondence was probably even more widespread. Nonetheless Marx was widely perceived as authoritarian and "foreign," which was clearly an impediment to the growth of French Marxism. Furthermore, Malon and a number of other French exiles had been active in combating the ascendancy of Marx in the First International. Given these conditions, growth of Marxist organizations proceeded slowly. Lafargue attempted to spread Marx's teachings after his return to Paris in 1868, and he attempted to establish a Marxist-oriented section of the Paris federation of the International in early 1870. 17 But the first group firmly attached to Marxist thought seems to have been the Toulouse section of the International, which after August 1872 was animated by Deville and Victor Marouck. There was also a group that met regularly between 1873 and 1885 at the café Soufflet in Paris to discuss social and political questions, and while its members held varying ideological viewpoints, the Marxists were a strong contingent. 18 It was here that Guesde, influenced by José Mesa and Karl Hirsch, proclaimed his adherence to Marxism after his return from exile in 1876. The weekly L'Egalité, which appeared in 1877, with Guesde as its chief editor (assisted by Deville, P. Gerbier, Emile Massard, and E. Oudin), was instrumental in raising the visibility of Marxism in France. 19 Its foreign correspondents included such notable socialists as August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and De Paepe. L'Egalité is regarded as the first Marxist journal in France, though it was neither sophisticated nor "orthodox," especially in its first series (18 November 1877— 14 July 1878), which included articles by anarchists and reformists in addition to Marxists. Deville himself later admitted: "We were learning socialism while we were teaching it to our readers, and it is unquestionable but that we were at times mistaken." 20 From the first edition (18 November 1877) the journal clearly stated its ideal: "We believe, with the collectivist school,. . . that the natural and scientific evolution of humanity is inevitably leading it to the collective appropriation of the land and of the instruments of labor." 21 Such a collectivist goal, however, was by no means a monopoly of the Marxists. The second series of L'Egalité, which began publication on 21 January 1880, was more

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

73

unambiguously Marxist, calling itself "a revolutionary, collectivist organ." 22 Lafargue joined the editorial staff, and the differences between the Marxists and the anarchists became more prominent: Guesde and Lafargue emphasized the necessity of an organized party, condemned electoral abstention, and believed that the control of the state was central for any revolutionary transformation. Because of his position as editor of L'Egalité and his vigorous defense of the thirty-nine delegates to an International Labor Congress— delegates who were arrested in Paris in September 1878—Guesde's name became more widely known. The growing visibility of Guesde and his immediate circle, and their support of collectivist doctrine, set the stage for the third National Labor Congress, which took place in Marseille in 1879. Marxism emerged as a major force at this conference, and it was prominent as well at the congress held in Le Havre the following year when the Programme électoral des travailleurs socialistes—generally referred to as the Minimum Program—was adopted. The Minimum Program was drawn up in London by Marx, Engels, Guesde, and Lafargue. The organizational activities of the Guesdists, as well as the popularizations of the works of Marx (written by Deville, Lafargue, and others), were responsible for the spread of Marx's influence in France during the 1880s. 23 Deville published L'Abrégé du "Capital" in 1883. Deville and Lafargue held conferences and wrote reviews on "economic materialism," on "the evolution of capital," and on literary subjects. The most effective propagandist of all was Guesde himself, who participated in more than 1,200 meetings between 1882 and 1890. 24 The Guesdists created another weekly, Le Socialiste, which appeared in two series (29 August 1885-26 March 1887 and 11 June 1887-4 February 1888). Many of these publications were designed as much to attack the theories of their socialist competitors—Possibilists and integral socialists—as to disseminate the theories of Marx. Members of these other socialist groups responded by criticizing Guesde and pointing out the limited nature of Marx's theory, as they understood it. 25 Most French writers associated Marx's name with rigorous economic analysis and the inevitability of the coming revolution. Leaders like Guesde showed little appreciation of Marxism as a method of analysis; rather they looked upon it as a formulated doctrine. Workers were encouraged to learn the Marxist catechism so as to be prepared for the imminent revolution. The rigidity and dubious accuracy of this

74

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

Marxism was sufficient to elicit from Marx the pained lament "I am not a Marxist." 2 6 Some subsequent commentators have been so disheartened by the low level of theoretical sophistication of the French Marxists that they have discounted the entire group. George Lichtheim, for example, has judged the 1880s to have been "a dead loss." "What passed for Marxism before the 1890s," he observed, "was a mere parody." 2 7 Daniel Lindenberg similarly refers to Guesdism as the "misère du marxisme ordinaire." 28 But however pedestrian, these popularizations of Marxist thought were responsible for the diffusion in France of fundamental ideals associated with Second International Marxism: class struggle, the historical necessity of the proletarian revolution, the mechanism of surplus value. 29 French Marxism (or Guesdism) was not widespread in the 1880s; in fact, Marxist socialism in France before the 1890s remained, in the words of one historian, "an extremely tender plant," less common than the reformist socialism of independent socialists and Possibilists. 30 But Marxism was by this time the ideology of an important working-class organization (the Parti ouvrier français or POF), and by the 1890s it was being broadcast from the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies by such prominent Marxists as Lafargue (elected to the Chamber in 1891) and Guesde (elected in 1893). THE VICTORY OF COLLECTIVISM: 1879-1880 The issue of collectivism was a central one for socialists in France during the years when Marxism was first being introduced, and it is seen by some present-day analysts as the defining element of "true" socialism. 31 This is problematic since most writers of the period assumed that socialism was a comprehensive category that included the left-wing opponents of the collectivists. 32 There is no question that collectivism was an issue of first importance and that its definition reflected the attempts by socialists to articulate with some specificity the institutional structure of socialist society. It was consequently an issue about which there was considerable debate. The issue of collectivism first became prominent during the First International, and especially in the late 1860s. 33 The second phase of the discussion of collectivism occurred during the late 1870s and early 1880s when exiled Communards were returning to France and when labor and socialist groups became more active.

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

75

For many analysts, the National Labor Congress at Marseille in 1879 and the composition of the Minimum Program in 1880 represent an important watershed in the history of collectivism and of French socialism. R. D. Anderson, for example, notes that the third [congress] at Marseilles in 1879 was a turning-point in the evolution of the movement because it committed itself to the principle of collectivism and to political action, creating a Socialist party called the Fédération

du Parti des Travailleurs Socialistes de France. These decisions were the

work of Guesde and his followers, and the next congress at Le Havre in 1880 adopted a "minimum programme" drawn up by Guesde in consultation with Marx. 34

Anderson and others believe that the triumph of collectivism in 1879 must be viewed as synonymous with the victory of French Marxists over their ideological rivals. However, given the ambiguity of the term "collectivism" and the widely divergent nature of the groups that lined up on the collectivist side in 1879, the degree to which this date marks a new beginning may be overestimated. 35 The doctrinal changes resulting from the congress of 1879 are best placed in perspective through comparison with resolutions from previous congresses. At the 1878 congress in Lyon (28 January-8 February), the majority of delegates favored cooperative forms of organizations for the amelioration of workers' conditions, specifically chambres syndicales and cooperatives of credit, production, and consumption. They rejected "revolutionary" tactics (by which they meant action in the streets and at the barricades), and they rejected "politics" (by which they meant cooperation with the Opportunist Republic). They did not object to all political activities, however, for they passed a resolution in favor of presenting worker candidates in the 1878 elections, candidates who would be required to follow "the socialist program imposed by their committees." 36 The majority of delegates at the famous congress of the following year (in Marseille, 2 0 - 3 1 October 1879) rejected the transformative faith previously placed in cooperative associations. Cooperatives continued to be recommended, but they were no longer seen as sufficient to ensure the emancipation of the worker. As Guesde put it in a publication of 1879, the organization of the proletarian forces into unions and cooperatives was a positive step "provided that they, instead of being considered the aim, are held to be what they really are, that is,

76

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

simply a means of grouping." 37 A new militancy was also evident in the resolutions passed in 1879. The delegates advocated strikes in addition to nonviolent associations as essential instruments of the class struggle; social peace was on the defensive. The solution to the social question was now seen to require the organization of a workers' party and the transformation of private capital into "collective, impersonal, and inalienable" capital. A declaration voted on the last day of the conference affirmed that "the collective appropriation of all instruments of work and forces of production ought to be pursued by all possible means." 38 However, what this so-called victory of collectivism meant to the delegates who passed the resolution in 1879 was directly related to the ambiguous connotations that the term "collectivism" carried in 1879. One common meaning (and the one most frequently applied in subsequent discussions) was the Marxist sense of collectivization as used by Guesde, Lafargue, and their associates. Guesde, even in his anarchist phase, had called for the abolition of private property and the collectivization of land, industry, and products. 39 In L'Egalité the critique of private property and the collectivist solution was a central theme. Collectivism was defined as the collective appropriation of the means of production, not by workers' corporations nor by the commune, but by "une organisation sociale plus centrale." 40 On the difficult issue of the relationship of peasant ownership to collectivism, the leaders of L'Egalité unambiguously asserted that private land ownership and collectivism were incompatible and that there existed a growing opposition between the peasant proletariat and large property owners. 41 Collectivization, in short, would entail the nationalization of "capital immobilier et mobilier." 42 The Guesdist position on collectivism in 1879 seems clear (though, as Leslie Derfler and others have shown, it would be qualified during the 1890s, especially on the issue of peasant ownership). 43 But there were factions at the Marseille Congress with divergent stances on collectivism. Since 1868, for example, the Bakuninists had employed the term "collectivism" to refer to their own anarchist stance and to distinguish it from the "authoritarian communism" of Marx. 4 4 The term "collectivist" was generally employed by these anarchists to denote the collective ownership of the land and the means of production. The reformist socialists around Malon, who also embraced collectivism in 1879, had written in the late 1870s of the need to collectivize land and the instruments of labor, but they insisted on federal organizational structures

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

77

and on control of the products of labor by the individual laborer. The followers of Hippolyte Colins advocated the collectivization of land and a partial socialization of capital.45 The essential point is that the term "collectivism" had many resonances in 1879; it belonged to the vocabulary of divergent groups— anarchists, reformist socialists, Colinsists, Marxists. All agreed that militant action was necessary to collectivize wealth. But what this jointly embraced program meant as a positive ideal, beyond an attack on the regime of absolute private property, is elusive in the extreme. "Collectivism" was a blanket name "used for all determined socialists."46 The ambiguity of the collectivist stance was indicated by the banners on the walls of the Marseille Congress that bore the slogan "The land to the peasant, the tool to the worker, labor for all." 47 The passage of the resolution on collectivization at the Marseille Congress was made possible because of a coming together of Marxists, reformist socialists, and anarchists after April 1878. As Eugène Fournière characterized it some years later, the distinction between socialists and anarchists at this time was often purely verbal.48 But differences remained, and the ambiguity of the resolution reflected this. Constructed to provide a common basis for agreement against the mutualists or cooperativists, it carefully avoided contentious issues, such as the manner in which collectivization was to be achieved, the extent of the proposed collectivization, and how the collectivized property was to be administered. Because the resolution failed to address these points, it was open to a wide variety of interpretations and quickly became the focus of vigorous polemics. The divergent ideological strains within the newly formed party—the FTS (Fédération des travailleurs socialistes)—became manifest almost immediately in the regional congress of the Federation of the Center, which met in Paris in July 1880. 49 Here, the anarchists and the Guesdists closed ranks to defeat the reformism of Jean-Baptiste Drouet, a delegate of fifteen syndical chambers from Le Havre, who called for electoral cooperation between socialists and republicans. Together the anarchists and the Guesdists passed a resolution favoring the collective ownership of the means of production. But the organizational form that would follow the revolution and the elimination of private property remained a volatile issue, as did the question of participation in politics. The anarchists wished to prevent the intervention of any external directive force, either to regulate production or to supervise consumption;

78

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

they preferred that liberated individuals of the postrevolutionary future elaborate their own social forms to cope with the variety of conditions and needs that they would confront. Collectivism for the Guesdists had more directly political dimensions: the takeover of political power was a central goal of social revolution; administration of collectivized property would require "political" intervention. The diverging ideologies manifested themselves prominently in the discussions about the so-called Minimum Program of 1880. This program was written in London by Marx with the assistance of Engels, Guesde, and Lafargue, but it grew out of a desire on the part of many socialists to rally the Left under the banner of a common statement of principles and objectives. Malon, in an article published in 1887, recalled his good relations with Guesde and Lafargue during this period and stated that the second series of L'Egalité (which included Guesde and Lafargue on its editorial board), though more revolutionary and sectarian than his own journal La Revue socialiste (first series, published in Zurich in 1880), still closely reflected his own social philosophy. Both journals, according to Malon, were controlled by "revolutionary collectivists" who appealed to justice and called for the collectivization of property. 50 He and Lafargue at this time (1879-80) both advocated the participation of socialists in municipal governments, believing that it was the first step toward complete worker emancipation. 51 Lafargue criticized this position after late 1881, but during 1880 it was seen by both men as a means of raising the revolutionary consciousness of workers and building the workers' party into a more powerful and experienced political group. 52 Because of this common ground, Malon readily joined hands with the Guesdists in preparing and presenting the Minimum Program to French workers and socialists. But the differences between Malon's vision and that of Guesde and Lafargue soon became obvious. Malon proposed a three-part program, including a philosophical statement of principles, a section on industry and commerce, and one on agriculture. He was particularly emphatic that concrete reforms be included, writing Guesde that it was better "to act and organize the working class first for the immediate battles on the political and economic terrain, and only secondarily for the revolutionary battle." 5 3 He went on to stress that workers desired practical reforms and would be unwilling to wait for the transformative revolution. Indeed, reforms would not only ameliorate the present conditions of workers but would help prepare them for

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

79

the social revolution in the future. "Are we not able, after having affirmed our revolutionary and collectivist principles, to make a program of immediate demands which are in some manner electoral and on which we may count until the day of the vote?" Malon asked.54 Malon opposed what he viewed as Guesde's desire to create a governing party elite, personally favoring a democratic and federalist organization for the party. During the negotiation over the Minimum Program, Malon consulted with other socialists—Jean Lombard, Prudent Dervillers, Achille le Roy, Jean-Baptiste Dumay, and others—and served as something of an intermediary between the Marxists gathered in London and the more reform-oriented socialists in France; this effort was complicated by the fact that Malon himself was still residing in Zurich. 55 He also corresponded with Brousse, who was in London but who had been excluded from participating in drawing up the program by the Marxists. Brousse had doubts about the sort of program that would emerge, and warned Malon against endorsing it. 56 But Malon did support it, and because of his support it was widely believed that he had participated in the actual writing of the program. This was not the case: having assured himself that his conditions had been accepted, Malon left the drafting of the document to Guesde, Lafargue, and Marx. Years later, he would speak of his unhappiness with the document, recounting that the program was more truncated than his discussions with Guesde and Lafargue had led him to expect.57 The program did not contain the detailed plan for industrial and agrarian reform that Malon desired and that he believed Guesde and Lafargue had promised to include. But at the time of its appearance, he found it acceptable, despite his reservations. The confusion concerning the authorship of the Minimum Program was such that Malon wrote a public letter in June (published in Le Prolétaire, 3 July 1880) explaining that the program was a collective elaboration of principles and not his personal program. His insistence on this issue was no doubt related to the conflicting interpretations that the program immediately received. The Minimum Program—published almost simultaneously in L'Egalité, La Revue socialiste, Le Prolétaire, and La Fédération—was divided into two parts. It began with a general programmatic statement of the need for the emancipation of workers through the collective appropriation of the means of production, which could be achieved "only by the revolutionary action of the proletariat." 58 A list of specific

80

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

reformist demands followed: freedom of press and association, the creation of a popular militia, autonomy of the commune, an eight-hour workday, and a minimum wage. The program offered a little to everyone, and it was useful for the continued brief organizational unity of the Fédération des travailleurs socialistes. But it did not contribute to ideological clarity. In L'Egalité, for example, the program was presented as a clear articulation of the need for a revolutionary takeover of political power, which angered the anarchists and led to their withdrawal from the journal.59 La Revue socialiste and Le Prolétaire, on the other hand, emphasized the reformist portion of the program, with Malon suggesting that the ultimate revolutionary goal should not prevent socialists from addressing immediate problems and pursuing concrete reforms.60 In a letter published in Le Citoyen dimanche on 18 July 1880, Malon reiterated his support for a reformist interpretation of the Minimum Program, calling for the "socialization of the material and instruments of labor," equality of rights for women, and the formation of a workers' socialist party. Pursuit of such socialist reforms should be "by political means (reformist, legal) and by revolutionary means, depending on the circumstances." In La Revue socialiste (20 July 1880), Malon pointed to the reformist and federalist aspects of the program, emphasizing the reduction of the length of the working day and the administrative autonomy of the commune. The Minimum Program, in sum, failed to bring unity to the various factions of the French Left. The Federation of the North rejected collectivism. At regional congresses in Marseille and Lyon during August 1880, the electoral portions of the program were rejected, an indication of anarchist strength in these regions. The various collectivist groups could put aside their differences long enough to attack radicals like Clemenceau or to vote against the mutualists, as they did at the Congrès national socialiste ouvrier at Le Havre (November 1880), but discord was growing.61 At the congress at Le Havre the program was officially adopted, but only after the collectivists (who now called themselves the Parti ouvrier) had split off from the mutualists and an anarchistinspired preface had been added.62 In addition, a resolution was adopted that allowed individual candidates to stand for election on a platform that articulated more specific reforms. The autonomy of individual socialist candidates was implicitly recognized. Arguments over the Minimum Program highlighted the diverging ideologies among the different socialist groups. In 1880, there remained

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

81

a tenuous cohesion of anarchists, Marxists, and reformist socialists.63 But it was not to last. THE FACTIONALISM OF THE EARLY 1880S AND MALON'S RETURN TO FRANCE Malon returned from exile to Paris following the general amnesty of Communards in July 1880. 64 He soon was at the center of the struggles within the Parti ouvrier that splintered the organization during the next couple of years. Following the adoption of the Minimum Program, the anarchists split off, first at the regional congress of the Federation of the Center, in Paris on 22 May 1881, then in the Federation of the East and the Federation of the South. The next month, the Blanquists split off to form the Comité révolutionnaire central (CRC). During the same year Brousse (having returned to Paris) and Malon began to articulate their reformist program of municipal socialism. Malon's journalistic alignments paralleled the factional disputes among socialists. When he arrived in Paris, Malon was still editing the first series of La Revue socialiste, which was a bimonthly; during the same period he was contributing to L'Egalité, the paper of the Guesdists—an indication of the closeness between Marxists and reformists like Malon in the early months of 1880. Apparently, he was also approached by Rochefort about writing for L'Intransigeant. He refused to collaborate with Rochefort because of the pressure of friends and his fears that it would aggravate the factional divisions among socialists, though years later he expressed some regret.65 In September 1880, Malon agreed to collaborate with Guesde and Brousse on a new journal, to be called L'Emancipation.66 Malon was designated fondateur et rédacteur-en-chef, and to launch the new enterprise he ended his contributions to L'Egalité; ceased publication of his own journal, La Revue socialiste; and settled in Lyon, where L'Emancipation was to be published.67 Malon informed his friends in Germany that the new journal would provide unity and direction to the French socialist movement: French socialism is in full crisis. The elements are numerous and lively. It is a question of coordinating them, by forming a party in the middle that will attract from the Right the majority of moderates and from the Left the anarchists. Reflecting the direction of social change, such a party should

82

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left have the socialization of productive forces as a goal and political and economic action as means.

L'Emancipation quickly ran into financial problems, however, and appeared for only one month, October—November 1880. Malon later publicly complained of an incompetent administrator on the staff of the paper, and in his letters he lamented the financial burdens left to him after the journal's demise. 69 Following his unhappy experience with L'Emancipation, Malon returned to Paris and became a member of the editorial board of Le Citoyen. On 9 January 1881, Le Citoyen published some letters from workers asking Malon to become a candidate in the upcoming elections for the Chamber of Deputies. Malon publicly declined. Malon's connection with Le Citoyen embroiled him in legal troubles: in July 1881, the paper was taken before the ninth Chambre correctionnelle for defamation, and Malon, as an editor of the paper and author of some of the offending articles, was fined 1,200 flames for "complicity in public defamation." The fine was paid, according to some accounts, by Rochefort. 70 By this date the tension between Malon and the Guesdists was growing. This, combined with the strain of the prosecution and his declining health, led Malon to quit Le Citoyen in August. 71 By mid-September he had shifted his allegiances to the paper Le Prolétaire, which had come under the control of Brousse and the reformist faction. Malon was named a member of the editorial committee of Le Prolétaire on 4 October, along with Brousse, Dervillers, Simon Deynaud, Fournière, F. Harry, and John Labusquière. Le Prolétaire was voted the official organ of the party by the majority of delegates at the National Congress in Reims the same month. Though personality conflicts were a factor, the splits within the socialist Left in France were largely caused by doctrinal differences— differences that had been clarified during debates over the Minimum Program. Two central doctrinal issues were in contention: whether reform or revolution was the appropriate means to collectivism, and the role of the party in the present struggle for, and in the later administration of, the new collectivist society. These two issues cannot be separated entirely, but it was primarily the dispute over the role and organization of the party that first split the Parti ouvrier. At the National Congress in Reims (30 October-

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

83

6 November 1881), Malon joined with Brousse, Fourniere, and Jules Joffrin to demand local jurisdiction over electoral programs. The Guesdists dissented, though they were outnumbered by a sizeable margin. The issue of electoral programs was integrally related to the issue of the degree of central control of sections by the party. This in turn echoed the dispute that had separated the Jura Federation from the London General Council a decade earlier. Malon insisted, as he had in the 1870s, that the organization of the workers' party should be strongly federalist; the national committee's tasks should be limited to correspondence with regional committees, circulation of statistics on employment and the labor movement, the planning of the national congresses, and the forming of a consultative committee for members of the party elected to municipal or national office. To as great a degree as possible, organization should revolve around the "spontaneous action of [local] groups." 7 2 Brousse and Malon wished to keep control of the party in the hands of workers rather than of intellectuals and party bureaucrats. They considered it imperative that real power remain at the local level, and not in the grip of a national committee. This was affirmed by Malon in an article in Le Citoyen in which he declared: "Yes, the federation, not the centralization of groups! Yes, impulse coming from all the points of the circumference . . . and not coming from an unrivaled center [emphasis in the original]." 73 The issue of party organization led into the larger issues of party control and party program, and on all these issues Malon and other reformists, like Brousse and Fourniere, found themselves increasingly at odds with Guesde and the Marxists. 74 The reform-versus-revolution debate was the most important of the programmatic differences. This debate had begun in earnest during discussions of the Minimum Program, and it continued unabated in the following months. As early as November 1880, in an article entitled "The Conquest of Municipalities," which appeared in L'Emancipation, Malon insisted on practical immediate reforms. 75 He argued that because "the proletariat and their allies were not yet strong enough to transform the old society all at once by a revolutionary action, they ought to begin by taking control of immediately seizable positions: the municipalities of the most democratic centers." The debate intensified during the legislative elections in late 1881. In October, Clovis Hugues won election to the Chamber as deputy from the Bouches-du-Rhdne (Marseille) and thus became the first socialist in

84

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

a position to defend workers' rights at the tribune of the Chamber. In December, Joffrin was presented as a candidate for the by-election in Paris by the Montmartre socialist group. As a result of the permissive resolutions passed at the Le Havre and Reims congresses, Joffrin decided to campaign on a platform emphasizing local issues rather than collectivist rhetoric and omitting the preamble of the Minimum Program, which made direct reference to revolution, in favor of the ouvriériste preamble of the inaugural address of the statutes of the First International. Ironically, Marx had been instrumental in drawing up both the inaugural address and the Minimum Program. Guesde and his followers were critical of the reformist orientation of Joffrin's program and insisted on strict adherence to the Minimum Program by all members of the party. Brousse and Malon supported Joffrin, applauding his reformist strategy, and insisted that the organization of the party should be federalist—that is, sufficiently flexible to permit the existence of a variety of different socialist groups. In Le Prolétaire, Brousse provided the most famous defense of Joffrin: I prefer to abandon the "all-at-once" practice utilized up until now that has generally succeeded in achieving "nothing at all." I wish to divide the ideal goal into several serious stages, to make some of our demands immediate and possible of realization. 76

Guesde lashed back that such "opportunism" was a lamentable deviation from true socialism.77 His pejorative retort "possibilism" was embraced by his opponents, however, who in turn charged the Guesdists with "impossibilism." By the end of 1881, Brousse and Malon were using the pages of Le Prolétaire to differentiate their "possibilist" program of municipal socialism from Guesde's "all-or-nothing" policy. By the winter of 1881-82, a split was imminent. In a letter to Fournière in December 1881, Malon complained of the authoritarianism of the Guesdists and insisted that the party needed to be broad enough to include a plurality of factions. 78 At about the same time Malon, tired of the incessant bickering, resigned from the national committee of the Parti ouvrier.79 In May of 1882, the arguments between the Guesdists and the reformists were renewed at the Congress of the Union fédérative du centre. Here Brousse and Malon emphasized the need for concrete reforms and recommended that workers use their local electoral power to gain control of municipalities in order to insti-

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

85

tute socialist reforms. Brousse was the most conspicuous advocate of what has become known as municipal socialism, and Malon concurred with his arguments on this issue.80 The final rupture of the Parti ouvrier came in September 1882, at the National Congress held in Saint-Etienne. Malon and the Possibilist majority voted to expel the Guesdist minority, which had walked out of the congress to hold its own meeting in Roanne. Here, the Guesdists formed a new party, the Parti ouvrier français (POF). The Possibilist party adopted a new name, Parti ouvrier socialiste révolutionnaire, which became (in 1883) the Fédération des travailleurs socialistes français (FTSF). Malon's private analysis of the new divisions within the party lay considerable blame on the French Marxists. He remarked: "There are two agents of Marx, Guesde and Lafargue, who wish to run the party dictatorially, and if that is impossible, to split it." 81 His public assessment of the split was more measured. When he published the second volume of Le Nouveau Parti in 1882, he condemned the "violent attacks of the Marxists" following the adoption of the "larger and more tolerant politics" by the party during and after the congress at Reims.82 He emphasized the wish of the Possibilist majority to advance the cause of workers through the realization of practical reforms, as opposed to the unrealistic idealistic purity that the Guesdists demanded. Malon claimed that to follow the strategy of the Guesdists—acceptance of an "exclusivism of ideas"—would relegate workers to a program of "impossibilism." 83 Relations within the Possibilist group were also strained, though there was none of the bitterness and invective that characterized the split between Guesdists and Possibilists. During the early 1880s, there was something like a division of labor within the FTSF, with Malon devoting time to literary projects and Brousse concentrating on party work. 84 Considerable tension developed between the two men, however. Malon objected to Brousse's dictatorial style of running the party, and he did not approve of Brousse's continued refusal to compromise with other socialist groups. Malon's misgivings were shared by Fournière, Gustave Rouanet, Hugues, and Joseph Ferroul. At any rate, as the tensions between Malon and Brousse developed in 1883—84, Malon began to distance himself from the FTSF and from Le Prolétaire.85 Frequently ill during these months, Malon devoted what energies he

86

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

possessed to his own writing.86 He also began the preparations for a more open and independent journal under his own control. The result would be the reappearance in 1885 of La Revue socialiste. FRENCH MARXIST THOUGHT: PAUL LAFARGUE The contrast between Malon and French Marxists can be most clearly understood by juxtaposing Malon's emerging "integral" vision with the stance of Lafargue, the son-in-law of Marx, who is characteristically viewed as the chief theoretician and propagandist of late nineteenthcentury French Marxism. 87 Some scholars have insisted that Lafargue had impressive theoretical abilities. J. Varlet, for example, believes there are profound pages in Lafargue's works, "where his grand erudition and where the brilliant manner with which he handles the Marxist method appear with clarity." 88 More frequently, however, Lafargue's use of Marxist theory has been criticized. Jacques Girault, for example, after suggesting that Lafargue was "impregnated with Marxism" and largely responsible for the introduction of Marxism into France, points to the persistent residues of Lafargue's Proudhonian beginnings, noting that "while Guesde schematized the analysis [of Marx], Lafargue often collapsed the Marxist dialectic into the Proudhonian dialectic." 89 Leszek Kolakowski has argued that Lafargue's Marxism "was highly simplified and it is hard to find anything in his writings that could be called a 'development' of the doctrine." He was "a gifted and versatile dilettante" whose articles "contributed to diluting the intellectual values of Marxism." 90 The simplicity of Lafargue's thought has impressed and disturbed most other analysts. William Cohn concludes that Lafargue had no appreciation of Marxist "praxis." 91 Claude Willard, the historian of the POF, though generally offering a kinder assessment of Lafargue (he refers to him as "the only theoretician of the party" and characterizes him as "the vigilant guardian of [Marxist] doctrine"), remarks on the "mechanical" way in which Lafargue employed the Marxist method.92 At the heart of Lafargue's philosophy is a crudely reductionist view of thought, morals, and politics. He argued that the mode of production of material life determines social and political institutions, as well as culture and human consciousness. Appealing to the sensationalist epistemologies of John Locke and Etienne de Condillac, Lafargue argued

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

87

that all abstract ideas were reflections of concrete material reality. "Men and animals," he said, "think only because they have a brain; the brain transforms sensations into ideas as dynamos transmute movement into electricity." 93 Lafargue's favored method of demonstrating the material base of ideas was to trace their etymological development from names of empirical objects. According to Lafargue, such abstractions were true to the extent that they accurately mirrored reality, as scientific hypotheses accurately represented the phenomena of nature. Lafargue elucidated this epistemological base primarily to provide the foundation for a critique of certain familiar sociopolitical concepts. As abstractions became divorced from their material references, Lafargue suggested that they could be used to cloak reality for the interests of a particular group. It was this inappropriate utilization of abstract ideas that Lafargue found particularly disturbing. The idea of justice, for example, had come to be situated within a rhetorical defense of bourgeois society. According to Lafargue, the concept of justice had insinuated itself into the human mind only after private property had been established. Juridical concepts had undergone change as property relations had changed, and as historical epochs had succeeded one another. "Justice and morality," he wrote, "change from one historical epoch to another . . . finally to accommodate themselves to the interests and needs of the dominant class." 94 In the modern world, the concept of justice served only to articulate in cloaked fashion the interests and the needs of the dominant class, the bourgeoisie. Oppressed classes were able to make their claims only within a language of justice that reflected the interests of their oppressors. Lafargue did not provide a very coherent philosophical discussion of the relationship between his conception of the origins of ideas and his view of ideas as "ideology." He, in effect, combined a Lockean/ Condillacian argument about origins with a simplistic proto-Gramscian argument about the hegemonic function of bourgeois cultural ideals. The polemical force of his analysis was to deflate what he viewed as class-based conceptions of justice, prevalent in religious ideologies and juridical systems, and to lead discussion back to concrete needs and their underlying socioeconomic foundations. "It is the necessities of production that govern [conduisettt] humanity," he observed, "and not the conscious or unconscious idea of justice." 95 In Lafargue's view these cynical justifications of class interest would "disappear as a bad dream

88

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

when common p r o p e r t y . . . replaced private property." 9 6 In communist society, justice would be more than realized; it would be surpassed, as would everything else bound up with private property. 97 Religion would similarly disappear with the intellectual emancipation that would follow economic emancipation: The religious question is not a primordial question; it is only the consequence of the social state that sustains us We devote ourselves resolutely to the job of uprooting the capitalist tree; from the day in which the tree is cut down, religions and the other forces that come from it will disappear forever.98 The most inherently engaging discussion by Lafargue in this vein was his exhortation to workers not to be taken in by the iedology of the bourgeois class and to proclaim their "right to be lazy." 99 The title of his short book with that title polemically overstates Lafargue's true position, for he was arguing for the right to leisure time rather than for the right to be lazy. Bourgeois and clerical propaganda had convinced workers that in principle all work was meritorious, even when it benefited capitalists more than workers. Lafargue argued that in fact some work was good, but unfortunately most work in modern societies was degrading and debilitating. The injustice of the capitalist system was that workers did not enjoy or possess that which they produced; rather they endured misery while a class of idlers lived off the products of their labor. " O u r epoch," Lafargue remarked, "has been called the century of work. It is in fact the century of pain, misery, and corruption." 1 0 0 To Lafargue, the true tragedy was that the propaganda in favor of work had wholly convinced workers, who in hard times called not for a just distribution of products, but rather for "the right to work." They had accepted the myth that their own misery would be relieved by more work rather than by a revolutionary change of social relations. "Work, work, proletarians," Lafargue exhorted workers in a rhetorical vein, "in order to increase social wealth and your individual misery; work, work, in order that, becoming poorer, you will have more reasons to work and to be miserable. Such is the inexorable law of capitalist production." 1 0 1 Lafargue implores workers to see through these mystifications and to proclaim "the right to laziness": In order to become conscious of its strength, the proletariat must trample underfoot the prejudices of Christian, economic, and free-thought morality; it must return to its natural instincts, it must proclaim the Right to be Lazy,

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

89

a thousand times more noble and more sacred than the anemic Rights of Man, concocted by the metaphysical lawyers of the bourgeois revolution; it must accustom itself to working only three hours a day, reserving the rest of the day and night for leisure and feasting.102

Lafargue's analysis of historical materialism, though hardly consistent with exhortations to workers to "be lazy," was equally simplistic. Lafargue insisted that all societies passed through the same forms, and he was fond of citing Marx's observation that industrialized societies represented for societies lower on the developmental ladder a look into their own futures.103 Historical development was the result of changes in productive forces, which in turn brought about changes in society and in ideas. These together had not only produced the class struggles of past historical periods, but were also creating the conditions within capitalism that would produce the next conflict. More specifically, Lafargue argued that in capitalist society workers were becoming increasingly impoverished, small businesses were being destroyed by competition, and the control of the means of production was falling into the hands of a decreasing number of powerful capitalists. This centralization, however, was reaching a point incompatible with capitalism; the final hour of capitalist property was approaching. Soon, to use one of Lafargue's favorite phrases from Marx, the expropriators would be expropriated.104 Lafargue's book Origine et évolution de la propriété drew heavily from Engels's classic work The Origin of the Family: Private Property and the State (1884) and codified the stance of French Marxists on the issues of property and collectivization. Lafargue argued that property forms evolve and that economists who argue that private property is an essential element of the human species are misguided. Private property had not always existed; it was not eternal, "natural," or innately "just." It had taken different forms in different historical periods, according to Lafargue, and it was by uncovering the common stages of property development—those that all societies go through—that a just appreciation of the nature of property in general, and private property in particular, could be gained.105 The book begins with a glowing account of the virtues of primitive society, a stage that Lafargue calls primitive communism.106 This is depicted as a golden age of generosity and fraternity, one in which the only personal property consisted of objects attached to the person. All else, including housing and meals, was communal. Lafargue's descrip-

90

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

tion evokes eighteenth-century dreams of the "noble savage," closer to popular distortions of Rousseau's ideas than to the ideas of Marx: 107 Not only did this elementary communism conserve equality, it even developed sentiments of fraternity and generosity that render ridiculous the highly praised Christian charity and no less celebrated philosophical charity. . . . Never, in any epoch of human development, was hospitality practiced in such a simple, grand, and perfect manner. 108

The development of hunting, animal husbandry, and farming propelled the fall from this state of communist perfection, and Lafargue devoted many pages to the transition from "primitive communism," through "le collectivisme consanguin" and "feudal property," to the deplorable state of bourgeois property within which advanced European countries were entrapped in the nineteenth century. The legal codification of absolute private property rights in France was one of the results of the Revolution of 1789. The Revolution had abolished the feudal laws protecting the privileges of nobles, but it also had denied peasants many of their communal rights. The Revolution was not advantageous to peasants: it had eliminated the biens communaux and, more generally, deprived peasants of their right to use the land of nobles and bourgeois for grazing, collecting firewood, and so on. By establishing absolute private property rights, the Revolution had opened the door for speculators and for extensive control of land by absentee owners who had no personal ties to the land and no sense of obligation to the local community. Fortunately, in Lafargue's opinion, historical development would continue. The growth of markets and the concentration of industries were making property relations unstable again, and the specter of a social revolution was in the air. As Lafargue noted, people "rally themselves today around the red flag of socialism in order to begin the social revolution that will expropriate the expropriators." 109 Lafargue's final chapter reveals that he was not opposed to private property ownership per se, but rather the form that private property ownership had assumed in the capitalist period. The ownership and use of land by individual families was disappearing at the expense of purely nominal ownership by speculators: Industrial production, agriculture, commerce, and finance capitalism could be born and could develop only by destroying the essential character of private property, transforming it from personal property to impersonal

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

91

property, and by establishing capitalist collectivism, which, rather than deriving from communism as primitive collectivism, prepares the way to communism.110 For Lafargue, therefore, communism would emerge from capitalism, which had already destroyed "the essential character of private property." The private property of former times, justified as the fruit of the work of its possessor, was disappearing. Disappearing with it was the justification of any form of private property, for individual production and use (those forms that were disappearing) were "the only conditions that legitimate private property." 1 1 1 Unlike the personal property of former times, the property of the capitalist period had become impersonal, inasmuch as "the possessor has not created [this capitalist property], nor does he make use of it." 1 1 2 In addition to becoming impersonal, property in the age of finance capitalism had also become collective: The instruments of production, which, during the period of small industry, were disseminated and possessed individually by artisans, were torn from their hands, were centralized, placed in common in gigantic factories and colossal farms. Work lost its individual character [emphasis in the original].113 It was this development—the destruction of personal private property by finance capitalism—that ironically would facilitate the elimination of all private property and make possible the reintroduction of communist collectivism. 114 The movement to communism would mean the disappearance of the financiers and the rise to power of the proletariat. Lafargue maintained that "the financiers . . . will disappear only when the proletariat, master of public power, expropriates the industrial capitalists, confiscates the Bank and other institutions of credit, and liquidates the public debt." 1 1 5 A national administration would replace the direction of the economy by capitalists, and production would benefit not the "idlers" but the producers. Proletarian collectivism would replace capitalist collectivism. In idealistic terms, it was to be a return to the golden age. Humanity would "recover its lost happiness and cleanse itself of the vile interests, the base passions, and the egoistic and antisocial virtues of the periode propriétaire,"116 When, in earlier years, Lafargue had considered the coming of communism, he had stated similarly that private property had become "im-

92

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

possible, not because . . . notions . . . of justice, equality, and so on demand it, but because the evolution of economic phenomena at this point today allows only one thing: la propriété commune."117 The revolution would entail "the passing of buildings [la propriété bâtie] to the nation," the nationalization of large stores, the confiscation of capitalist property, and its "transformation into national property." 118 Stores would be organized by the occupants of the neighborhood, who would distribute the contents to the workers. Lafargue did not wish to nationalize those products workers produced for themselves, arguing that these appropriately belonged to each individual worker. Capitalist property was produced when one exploited the salaried work of another, and it was this capitalist property that needed to be transformed or collectivized. Although noncapitalist property was disappearing, these distinctions did allow some private ownership: namely, of those products that workers produced for themselves. It was exactly this sort of argument that allowed the Guesdists during their reformist years (1893-98) to assure peasants that the victory of the Guesdists at the polls would not entail the elimination of the family farm. Immediate nationalization would be selective, though in the long term the private family farm was destined, as was all private property, for the "dustbin of history." This view of inexorable historical movement was closely related to the perception by Lafargue and the other leaders of the POF that they were "men of science," who derived objective laws from their observations of the facts of socioeconomic evolution. Lafargue himself described this perception as follows: Our theories, our principles, our aspirations are the immediate products of economic f a c t s . . . . What we have done is simply to disengage and to explain the conclusions from the economic facts; we are only the spokesmen of r e a l i t y . . . ; and we are revolutionary only because the economic milieu is in a revolutionary state. 119

Lafargue was fully conscious of his differences with other socialists, even other collectivist socialists. He confided in a letter to Martignetti in September 1891: "It is extraordinary to see the progress of socialism since 1880 when Guesde and I began to propagandize for communist theories, when we were forced to disguise them under the epithet of collectivism in order not to frighten anyone." 120 The theoretical core of Lafargue's vision was a mechanistic, Darwinian, positivistic form of Marxism—not an unusual mix during these last

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

93

decades of the nineteenth century. In his view, the motor of history was the class struggle; the inexorable trajectory of historical progress would lead to a modern class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that, in turn, would eliminate the wage-earning class and usher in the collectivist age—or rather, the communist age of national ownership and direction. MALON ON MARXISM AND COLLECTIVISM Malon agreed with much of Lafargue's theory. He too deplored the mystifications with which bourgeois society had disguised its injustices. He agreed that the analysis of economic relations was a central component of any socialist critique of social relations, and he agreed that collective ownership would progressively replace private property. But while he shared much with Lafargue and the other French Marxists, he became increasingly critical of their fatalism and their view of collectivism. In Malon's early writings, Marx's theory was of limited significance. As Malon pointed out in his 1872 book Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises, Marx's Das Kapital had not yet been translated into French, and he admitted that he knew of it only via comptes rendus.121 Nonetheless, what he did say about Marx in this book was positive: Karl Marx substituted in socialism the historical and objective method for the purely logical and subjective methods that had prevailed until this time. He demonstrated the economic impossibility of conserving individual appropriation in the future. . . . [Marx deduced] that the collective force increasingly dominates the conditions of production and of circulation and . . . fatally brings about, through labor, the necessity of cooperation or solidarity [emphasis in the original].122

In later years Malon remained respectful of Marx, characterizing him as "knowing" and "powerful" and crediting him with uncovering the economic factors in history.123 In 1884 he called Marx "the master of modern German socialism," and in 1892 he lauded the Communist Manifesto as a "veritable program of realistic socialism."124 He echoed Marx's attacks on utopianism and the phraséologie française, and he acknowledged Marx's attack of Proudhon as an important corrective.125 He suggested that Marx and Engels had given modern collectivism its scientific method.126

94

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

Malon clearly had great respect for Marx's contribution to European socialism, and he claimed that the first series of La Revue socialiste (1880-81) was one of the first publications in France to make Marxism known to the French-reading public. 127 But he never gave Marx the prominence that has become standard in histories of socialism written in the twentieth century. In his massive Histoire du socialisme, for example, Malon provided extracts from the Communist Manifesto; he also devoted several pages to a favorable presentation of Marx's discussions in Das Kapital of surplus value and the accumulation of capital, but this was included in a long discussion of modern German socialism, which contained sections on J. G. Fichte, Wilhelm Weitling, Karl Grün, Lassalle, Eugen Dühring, and others. Indeed, there are nearly as many pages devoted to Lassalle as to Marx. 1 2 8 Malon, despite his respect for Marx, harbored some serious reservations about Marxism. The Marxism to which he was reacting, however, was the mechanistic, deterministic Marxism of Lafargue and the Guesdists—what Malon referred to once as the characteristic Marxist belief in "social fatality." 129 Malon principally objected to the omissions implict in this determinism. Marxism was deficient, incomplete, because it failed to appreciate the plurality of forces operating in history. Marxism neglected what Malon in 1891 referred to as the other "cardinal institutions of human society": morality, the family, and the state. In short, Marxism was "incomplete" because the roots of socialism plunge into all human sorrows, into all intellectual and moral progress, into all the maturations of history; the conflict is thus less determined and larger than is admitted by the exclusive partisans of class struggle. 130

Malon expressed similar reservations in his book Lundis (1892):

socialistes

If class struggle is one of the most powerful factors of history, it does not always dominate. It is not any more correct to suggest that public societies are only the reflection of economic society. Human development is more complex, and religious, philosophical, and political factors play an increasing role that is often preponderant. 131

In Fourniere's words, Malon "reintroduced into the socialist concept that which some would call metaphysics. The school of Marx, too

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

95

simplistically materialist, sees only necessity. Malon added the notion of justice." 132 Malon believed that the incomplete and one-sided nature of Marxist analysis distorted the historical record of socialism. He firmly rejected, for example, the notion that socialism began with Marx and that previous social thinkers should be relegated to the status of Utopian dreamers and immature precursors of "true" socialism. 133 He was prepared to argue that Thomas More's Utopia was "the first monument of modern socialism." 134 He believed that the socialism of the late nineteenth century took "all its positive theories, except the systematization of the class struggle, and almost all its critical ideas from the theorists of the first half of the [nineteenth] century [emphasis in the original]." 135 Marx's socialism, in Malon's view, grew from the same roots. As he put it in an article in 1886, the communism of Marx was in some ways only the scientific coordination of French revolutionary collectivism, already thrown into class struggles by Proudhonian reminiscences and by working-class resentments stemming from 1871. But there remained differences in modes of reasoning, in style. 136

Given his reservations, it is not surprising that Malon dealt sympathetically with other German socialist writers, such as Lassalle and Schaeffle. He translated works of both of these men into French and lauded their reformist orientation and their encouragement of workingclass and communal "self-administration." 137 Whether this implies that Malon's socialism should not be called Marxist largely turns on how narrowly or broadly the latter is defined. French Marxists at the time believed that Malon's moral vision placed him outside Marxism, and numerous scholars since have agreed. 138 Malon's associates, on the other hand, tended to dismiss the idea that there was direct "opposition," favoring the view that the doctrines "complemented" each other. 139 Malon himself would have rejected the notion that he was anti-Marxist. But he would probably not have objected to Fournière's suggestion that he "took up socialism at the point where it was left by Karl Marx, and completed it." 140 The contrast between Malon and his French Marxist contemporaries is clearer in the context of his views on property and collectivism. Malon was at the center of debates about collectivism in France, and it was an issue to which he often returned in his writings. In one of his first works, Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises (1872), he had used

96

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

collectivism as the ideological umbrella under which all the positive elements of socialism were to be subsumed, though he admitted that it was a highly ambiguous concept. 141 Malon argued that history was moving in the direction of collectivism, pointing out (following JeanPhilippe Becker) that the number of independent farmers was decreasing. In England especially there had been a notable consolidation of holdings into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and a similar evolution was occurring on the Continent. 142 Citing De Paepe, Malon pointed to the analogous movement in agriculture and in industry, in which labor was becoming more concentrated and the ownership of property more collective.143 Malon argued that such concentrated and collective economic power should be taken from the hands of large landholders and idle industrialists and given to the workers and workers' associations. Small industry and small property would not be expropriated. Malon explicitly rejected the idea that socialism was synonymous with the elimination of property; rather it called for "a form of property conforming more closely to the modern concept of justice and more in harmony with historical development and the economic conditions of present society." Specifically, this meant that it is necessary to return to a social right of property by giving it a new form: inalienability of land and of the instruments of labor; individual appropriation by each worker of the equivalent of his production, minus social charges. 144

Clearly, Malon's collectivism did not imply the state ownership of and/ or control over all productive machinery and all products. Malon's collectivist vision was associative and federal. He believed that workers' societies were the "embryo of the administration of the future" and that they would realize—in addition to the social ownership of land—communal decision making for production. Workers' associations were to be widely encouraged, for they would regularize the price of goods and, more importantly, eliminate parasitic intermediaries who skim off profits. Wider administrative concerns were to be relegated to the commune and, beyond that, to the state. 145 Similar expressions of what Malon came to call federalist collectivism or reformist collectivism are found in many of his writings. 146 In a personal letter of 1879, he wrote that perhaps the day was not far off when "European socialists will come to an agreement of the basis of a

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

97

largely federalist collectivism, one that would respect the autonomy of groups and of individuals." 147 In his letters, programs, and articles, Malon was careful to distinguish his own program of collectivism from communism. In collectivism, the forces of production would remain under the control of professional groups and the products of labor would be enjoyed by the responsible workers. Under communism, he claimed, the forces of production would be placed under the control of the state, and the riches of work would be controlled by the community. 148 Collectivism, claimed Malon, was not "a Belgian counterfeit copy of communism, as Paul Lafargue has written, but a transaction, on the terrain of justice, between ancient Utopian communism and the prevailing individualism." 149 This distinction between collectivism and communism remained a central component of Malon's socialism in the books of his mature years. In Le Socialisme intégral and Lundis socialistes, he readily admitted that the term "collectivism" referred to a wide variety of different social programs; he differentiated no fewer than nine different types of collectivism in the nineteenth century. He suggested that the reformist collectivism he favored was close to the industrial collectivism of early nineteenth-century socialists like Constantin Pecqueur, François Vidal, and Blanc. Under reformist collectivism, the state and commune had important roles to play: the state would take over control of credit institutions, railroads, mines, canals, and large metallurgical plants. The commune would control the diverse monopolies such as buses, gas, electricity, water, and large stores that were specific to the locality. Finally, regional flour mills, communal bakeries, and communal butchers would be founded. None of these institutions, however, would be run by the state or the commune. Instead, the state or commune would rent the concessions for these industries and services to associations, thereby retaining some control over their operation, but leaving room for worker control and initiative. Remuneration would be based on the value of the product of one's labor, minus what was needed to cover "social expenses." 150 This program carried the legacy of the battles within the International during the late 1860s and the struggles against the mutualists, which had come to a head in Marseille in 1879. Though he had been attracted to mutualist socialism in the 1860s, Malon's mature writings remained consistently critical of socialists who rejected all state action. In retrospect, he judged harshly the French socialism of the 1850s and

98

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

1860s, when (as he put it in 1887) the combination of an exhausted socialist movement and the Bonapartist reaction had favored the ascendancy of Proudhonian mutualism. 151 From Malon's perspective, such a mutualist solution mistakenly created no role for the state; instead it relied on a peaceful cooperative transformation. Malon rejected an exclusively cooperative solution to the economic inequities of modern capitalist society. As he put it in his Histoire du socialisme, it was futile to expect "that social reform is possible by a simple generalization of cooperation. This optimism has been refuted a hundred times." 152 Malon believed that cooperatives alone were impotent against social inequities because they did not threaten capitalists. Experience had demonstrated that producers' cooperatives could be successfully created but that they were unlikely to succeed because modern production required a quantity of capital far in excess of what the members of the cooperative were able to save. To prevent the grievous inequities of advanced capitalist societies, the intervention of the public powers was required to regulate the conditions of labor, to provide for adequate insurance for those unable to work, and to establish public works to guard against the involuntary unemployment of the able-bodied. But if cooperatives alone were inadequate, they were, in Malon's opinion, important as organizational and educational centers for workers. Cooperatives, according to Malon, were "the true school of industrial and commercial practice," and they were an excellent preparation for the administrative duties that more and more workers would be called upon to perform in the future. 153 It was not the elimination or replacement of workers' cooperatives that Malon envisaged. Rather, he wished their continued functioning within a larger socialist configuration that also included important roles for the municipality and the state. 154 This perception of the continuing function of cooperatives distinguishes Malon's mature socialism from that of the French Marxists. Even during the 1890s, when Lafargue was judiciously reassuring peasants that they could keep their land, the thrust of his argument was that this was only for the short term. The inexorable movement of history would eventually eliminate private property and collective capitalist property and would transform them both into collective state property. In the long term, there was no role for cooperatives or for private farming. Malon saw history as moving in the same direction—toward collec-

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

99

tivism—but he saw the movement as less inexorable. 155 In Malon's collective society, there was a continuing role for private peasant ownership (though a declining one) and a sustaining role for cooperatives and professional associations. For Malon, these economic reforms would succeed only if there were concomitant moral and political changes. He rejected the crudely mechanistic and deterministic form of Marxism that was defended by Lafargue and the Guesdists in favor of a vision that gave priority to economic and educational relief for the poor, affirmed that men and women were equal, made private property neither an idol nor a taboo, and saw successful reform as necessarily moving on moral, political, and economic levels simultaneously. COLLECTIVISM, MARXISM, AND THE FRENCH LEFT It is useful to the understanding of the socialism of Malon and his generation to conclude with some general observations about collectivism, Marxism, and the French Left during the nineteenth century. It has been a common assumption among scholars that socialism was synonymous with collectivism. But one might ask whether collectivism is necessarily a meaningful criterion for socialism. Early socialists of the 1830s and 1840s did not uniformly call for collectivist solutions: not only was the term not in use, but there were many who would have objected to the post-1879 collectivist position on property. Nor were all socialists of the Third Republic collectivists. After 1879 a majority of organized socialists considered themselves collectivists, but the mutualist minority still existed. Indeed, Lefranc has pointed out that "the victory of collectivism was without doubt less total than certain historians of socialism have stated." 156 There remained a significant group committed to cooperative/mutualist forms of social organization—for them, this was socialism. It is inaccurate to claim, therefore, that socialism is synonymous with collectivism.157 The collectivism of the majority after 1879 was not a unified position, as the splits of the early 1880s make clear. The divergent groups agreed only on what they disliked—the nonmilitant stance of the mutualist or cooperative socialists who believed that syndical organizations alone (e.g., credit, consumers', and producers' cooperatives) would usher in the socialist age. Mutualists were often willing to compromise with other republican political groups. The collectivists believed that more militant action—strikes and revolution—was necessary

100

Marxism, Collectivism, and the French Left

and that cooperation with Radical republicans like Clemenceau was counterproductive. The collectivists also agreed that the wage system needed to be eliminated, and they shared a radical critique of absolute private property and a desire for the collective ownership of the means of production. But they differed on the important issues of the means to, extent of, and administration of collective property. Therefore, it is problematic to view 1879-80 as the victory of Marxism. Indeed, it is difficult to view these years as much of a turning point at all. In addition to the continued existence of mutualism, there was also a continuing respect for workers' cooperatives and workers' associations among the collectivists. This was especially true for reformist socialists like Malon, whose vision of reformist collectivism carried many legacies from the cooperative and associative socialism of their predecessors. Concerning the Marxist dimension of French socialism, the relevant question is not, When did socialists in France become Marxists? It is rather, How did Marxism affect earlier traditions of French socialism when it became an influential strain on the French Left? Marxism did strengthen certain components of earlier socialism—such as the importance of politics and the centrality of a tightly organized political party. And it shared a great deal with all socialist traditions, including the moral critique of capitalism and exploitation, and the proposal for a class-based reorganization of society. Marxism, in short, strongly reinforced certain earlier tendencies, but during the nineteenth century, it had no transformative impact on indigenous socialist traditions. 158 As for Malon, although the confrontation with Marxism had provided him with a more detailed theoretical framework for economic analysis, it also supplied another example of jacobinisme. It acted less as a positive theory than as a negative model that reaffirmed Malon's opposition to authoritarian structures and his commitment to workers' associations and republican politics. Like most French socialists, Malon interpreted Marxism through the filter of the indigenous tradition of French republican socialism. For Malon, the consequence of this encounter was "integral socialism."

CHAPTER

FOUR

La Revue socialiste and Intégral Socialism Ce Socialisme Intégral, tracé par Benoît Malon, où le socialisme n'apparaît pas comme une étroite faction, mais comme l'humanité elle-même; où le socialisme semble être l'image de l'humanité, de l'éternité.1

LA REVUE

SOCIALISTE

The intersocialist struggles of the late 1870s and early 1880s had taken a toll on all the participants; Malon, in particular, was exhausted. It is clear from his correspondence that by the mid-1880s Malon's health was declining: as early as August 1880, he mentioned in a letter to Georg von Vollmar that he had not been feeling well, and during the following winter he complained to Fourniere of bouts of bronchitis.2 Elie Peyron recalls that Malon was racked by fits of coughing in 1885, and the condition had become so chronic by 1887-88 that doctors advised him not to remain in Paris during the winter.3 Malon's admirer and supporter, Rodolphe Simon, made financial provision for him to winter in Cannes; this arrangement continued for the remainder of his life.4 His poor health was one reason Malon never ran for public office after his return from exile, though his stutter, which prevented him from being a dynamic speaker, was a consideration as well.5 His health was also a factor in his decision to revive the journal La Revue socialiste. Malon's primary reason for reestablishing La Revue socialiste, however, was his desire to effect conciliation within the factionalized socialist movement. Malon frequently lamented that the Communards arrived home after the amnesty of 1880 only to find the socialist movement splintered into numerous factions.6 Though personally involved in many of the disputes among French socialists, he deplored the divisions and hoped for renewed unity. During 1883—84, when Malon began to 101

102

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

distance himself from the FTSF and Le Prolétaire, he devoted his energies to the creation of an open and independent socialist journal under his own control. The results was La Revue socialiste, which reappeared as a monthly in January 1885. 7 It proved to be one of the most successful French socialist journals of the late nineteenth century, lasting well beyond Malon's death, and it has had an impressive history in the twentieth century as well. It ceased to appear in July 1914 but was revived by Jean Longuet in 1925 as the Nouvelle revue socialiste. It disappeared again in 1930 but was revived in 1945 and continues to this day. 8 Malon set the tone for the journal during its first thirty years. From 1885 until his death in 1893, he was editor and also administrator, which gave him the responsibility for arranging contributions, as well as for determining the content and overseeing the layout of each issue. Even after his death, the influence of Malon—Rouanet referred to him as "notre maître vénéré"—continued, at least until World War I.9 Malon was assisted in his work on La Revue socialiste by Rouanet and Fournière. Rouanet (1855-1927), a self-educated writer and journalist, seems to have provided the administrative continuity when Malon was not in Paris. 10 He came to La Revue socialiste with considerable experience as a journalist, having founded the socialist paper L'Emancipation sociale in Narbonne in 1881 and collaborated with Jules Vallès on the Cri du peuple in 1883. He also had firsthand knowledge of the factionalism within the labor movement: he had represented the chambre syndicale of Brest at the labor congress in Saint-Etienne in 1882, siding with the Possibilists against the Guesdists. He had always embraced a moderate stance, which put him close to Malon during the 1880s, and he was even more inclined than Malon to see the realization of socialism as inseparable from republican institutions. He was one of the first socialists to proclaim that the young Jaurès, though still a Radical, was in fact a socialist.11 His articles for La Revue socialiste often focused on agriculture and industry and on analyses of the general state of the economy, which during the mid- and late 1880s was in recession. In 1890, Rouanet was elected to the Paris Municipal Council as the representative from Clignancourt (18th arrondissement). In 1893, he was elected to the Palais Bourbon as a deputy, again representing Clignancourt. There, in February 1893, he founded with René Viviani and Alexandre Millerand the first major organization of independent socialist deputies, the Fédération républicaine socialiste de la

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

103

Seine. He remained a deputy until 1914 and worked closely with Juarès on many issues. He was an early supporter of Dreyfus, and he used La Revue socialiste, which he edited between 1898 and 1905, as a forum for the defense of Dreyfus. In 1904, he supported reconciliation with the Guesdists in order to achieve socialist unity. Fournière (1857-1914), a self-educated jeweler, first gained prominence in the socialist movement by attacking Blanc from a Guesdist position at the Marseille Congress of 1879. 12 But by 1881 (at the congress at Reims) he was siding with Malon and Joffrin in favor of autonomy of socialist electoral candidates and against the rigidity of the Minimum Program. At Saint-Etienne in 1882, he voted with the majority against the Guesdists, and during the next few years, he traveled widely in the Midi and in Corsica propagandizing for the reformists. After the creation of La Revue socialiste, Fournière continued to travel frequently, establishing contacts for the journal. 13 In 1896, he was elected Parisian municipal councilor from Clignancourt (replacing Rouanet) and served until 1900. In 1898, he was elected to the Chamber as deputy from the Aisne; he served until his defeat in the elections of 1904. Like Rouanet, he was a Dreyfusard and supported socialist unity. Unlike Rouanet, however, Fournière devoted most of his energies not to politics, but to writing and teaching: he was professor at l'Ecole libre des hautes études sociales (1889), at l'Ecole professionnelle supérieure des postes et télégraphes (1903), at l'Ecole polytechnique (1904), and at the Conservatoire des arts et métiers (1905). From 1905 until his death in 1914, he was editor of La Revue socialiste. Early financial support for La Revue socialiste came from an industrialist named Villaseca, but it was Rodolphe Simon, a wealthy businessman, who became the propriétaire of the journal and provided the needed financial continuity. 14 Simon owned a vineyard in the Midi but lived in the heart of the financial district of Paris. 15 There is little additional information about Simon beyond his high respect for Malon, his elegant dress, and his anti-Semitism.16 Simon paid Malon 6,000 francs a year for his editorial and administrative work for the journal. This provided Malon with the security that had long eluded him; having spent his life in a series of temporary jobs, he had indicated his hope years earlier that the creation of a journal would offer "assured work" and a steady income. 17 In addition, La Revue socialiste provided Malon with a forum for the regular publication of his own writings.

104

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

La Revue socialiste was designed to be open to all the factions of the socialist movement. As the manifesto of the first issue proclaimed, La Revue socialiste . . . will not be the organ of a man, a sect, or a party; it will be the foyer where all the ideas of reform and social transformation will converge Because it is time to extricate the elaboration of socialism from the accidents of personal rivalries, from private ambition, from sectarian intrigue . . . it seems to us that it will be useful to open a common site [chantier de travail\ for all socialists of goodwill without distinction of school. 18

In fact, La Revue socialiste came to reflect the integral socialist stance of Malon and his associates, as indicated by the authorship of signed articles. During the years that he was editor (1885-93), Malon wrote about 20 percent of the pages attributed to a specific author; Rouanet wrote another 10 percent. Malon, Rouanet, Fournière, and other close associates also dominated those sections of the journal that analyzed current socioeconomic developments and reviewed the press and new books; it is clear that they set the overall doctrinal tone. Nevertheless, the diversity of the list of contributors is impressive. There were 146 different contributors to La Revue socialiste between 1885 and 1890. They included feminists like Léonie Rouzade and Marie Finet; men of science close to the positivist tradition like Albert Delon; foreign correspondents like Guillaume Degreef (from Belgium), Domela Nieuwenhuis (from Holland), Andrea Costa and Napoleon Colaianni (from Italy); and socialist luminaries like George Bernard Shaw, De Paepe, and Jaurès.19 The average monthly issue included three or four articles; a short notice about a prominent figure of the Left; perhaps a poem; correspondence, sometimes followed by an editorial response; a section entitled "Revue des faits sociaux" that summarized the general economic climate in various countries throughout the world, in addition to providing news about labor action, strikes, and labor congresses; a section on the recent meetings of learned societies that discussed social and economic matters; a review of the press; and reviews of recent books. It was about 100 pages in length.20 During the same years in which Malon launched La Revue socialiste, he created a discussion group called the Société d'économie sociale as a further effort to promote unity among reformist socialists.21 The first meeting, on 7 November at the Paris home of Elie May, was presided

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

105

over by Malon and May. 22 Other charter members included Fournière, Georges Renard, Ernest Roche, Auguste Chirac, René Vaillant, and Antide Boyer, all frequent contributors to La Revue socialiste.23 The society existed for about three years, and though it sparked some interest among intellectuals like Millerand and Jaurès, it never attracted much support beyond the immediate circle of La Revue socialiste. Malon was also interested in maintaining contact with other groups on the Left, and to this end he allowed the offices of La Revue socialiste to be used for the meetings of the Club de l'art social, which was founded in 1889 with the goal of directing art into social channels. This organization was founded by writers like Léon Cladel, Lucien Descaves, Rosny, and Jean Ajalbert and was joined by artists and militants including Camille Pissaro, Auguste Rodin, Jean Grave, Louise Michel, and Amilcare Cipriani. The weekly meetings of this organization lasted only for about a year. 24 REVOLUTION AND REFORM La Revue socialiste was the forum for Malon's mature sociopolitical writings. Here, most of his published books were first printed; here, he articulated in considerable detail the reforms that made up what he came to call integral socialism. Malon's detailed consideration of reforms reflected his increased hopes for peaceful change as well as his new reservations about the appropriateness of revolution. He described his stance as follows in Lundis socialistes: "We know to be revolutionary when circumstances demand it, but to be reformist always." He judged the circumstances in France in the 1880s and early 1890s to be particularly favorable to nonviolent reform. 25 The issue of reform was integrally connected with the possibilities of realizing socialism, and Malon's new reformist emphasis marked a notable evolution on the issue of the appropriate means by which reformist collectivism was to be realized. In the late 1860s and the early 1870s, Malon frequently spoke of the need for violent revolution when such violence would not compromise the socialist solution he envisaged. But increasingly, he favored peaceful reformist actions. In the debates within Italian socialist circles during the 1870s, for example, he had adopted a flexible "experimental" position calling for reform or revolution depending on the historical circumstances.

106

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

By the late 1870s, he was advocating peaceful reform by an activist state. In 1878, for example, he praised Blanc for proposing that the state become vis-a-vis monopolistic interests what the same monopolistic interests had already been vis-a-vis small industrialists and small farmers—namely, more competitive. The important difference was that the competitive edge of the state could be directed and the benefits could be used to further economic justice, rather than to fill the pockets of a small minority.26 Therefore, as a means, an activist state had an important role to play. Malon often praised, in this regard, the theories of Vidal and Pecqueuer, who had also recognized the necessity of state intervention to implement reforms such as a strong tax on inheritance and a progressive income tax. 27 These taxes would help generate the capital that could be used to grant needed credit to those workers' associations interested in taking out concessions on the various industries or services. But whether such reforms would lead to a fully realized collectivism or were merely temporary partial steps, falling short of true social transformation, was a fundamental concern. In the years 1880-81, Malon still adhered to the position that a final revolutionary upheaval would be necessary. In his correspondence at the time of the writing of the Minimum Program, for example, Malon wrote that the program would "establish that in the last analysis the socialization of productive forces could be brought about only by revolution," though he appended to this a list of those reforms that were immediately possible: "conquest of municipalities, workers to parliament, abolition of the budget des cukes, repurchase of mines and railroads, abolition of the permanent army, and so on." Reformist "evolution," he told his correspondent, must be pursued until the time was ripe for "revolution." 28 In similar fashion, Malon insisted in a letter to Fourniere (3 January 1882) that he was evolutionist and revolutionist.29 Malon's most extensive defense of this position was in his 1881 book, Le Nouveau Parti, in which he discussed the tension between reform and revolution.30 Malon argued that far from being antagonistic, reform and revolution were complementary. Indeed, reforms were a critical preparatory step toward revolution. Historical experience, he suggested, had demonstrated that revolutions did not emerge from the most miserable conditions, nor were the most oppressed workers the most revolutionary ones. On the contrary, the workers most apt to be revolutionary were those who had achieved some reforms and who had

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

107

benefited from the leisure that such reforms allowed. He recommended, on this front, the diminution of the length of the working day as "the most sure means of revolutionizing the working class." 31 He also argued that the regimes most apt to face revolution were not those that stifled all dissent and brought the full repressive power of the state and military down on the lower classes, but rather those that had introduced some reforms. Malon even quoted Tocqueville to the effect that "it is the people who have been set free that revolt." 32 In 1881, therefore, Malon still believed that lasting and significant social change required revolution—as he saw it, reforms would never make revolution unnecessary. Reforms were important beyond the amelioration of the immediate conditions within which workers lived and labored, because they also helped prepare the ground for revolution. In Malon's own words, "reforms are the mothers of revolutions." 3 3 However, by 1882 Malon was expressing new doubts. In the second volume of Le Nouveau Parti, he suggested that the thesis that claimed that the final social transformation was possible only by revolution was open to question: [This thesis] is probable, [but] I say probable, because it remains hypothetically not impossible for it to emerge from a decisive electoral victory, permitting the proletariat to master political power, [and] to proceed legally to the economic revolution that would emancipate it. The choice of means will depend on the attitude of the bourgeoisie.34 He began to suggest that though a "bloody conflagration" was likely, there was a possibility of avoiding it if there was "a crushing electoral victory, permitting workers to decree legally and to realize with a firm hand their emancipation." 35 By the mid-1880s, Malon spoke less and less of revolution and more and more of reform. He wrote almost exclusively of nonviolent working-class actions and advocated working through the institutional structure of the Third Republic. He did not rule out revolution, but his statements implied that it might be avoided. 36 By 1891, when he published the second volume of Le Socialisme intégral, he could still warn the bourgeoisie of the threat of revolution, but he himself drew back and, indeed, was eloquent concerning the dislocations and dangers a revolution would inevitably entail: In addition to the irreparable sacrifices of human life that would bloody the days of fighting, it is necessary to consider, in revolution, the long, inevitable,

108

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

and terrible crisis of transition and of general misery during which everyone suffers, and it is necessary to consider those moments of discouragement and doubt that often follow revolution and that are so favorable to inexorable reactions. This is a great danger that one avoids in following the political [route to socialism], which consists of wresting from the public powers the largest possible number of reforms. 37

REPUBLICANISM As Malon's devotion to reform intensified, so too did his attachment to a republican tradition in France that insisted on the interaction of political institutions and social mores. The importance of "classical republicanism"—or "civic humanism"—for modern political thought has received a great deal of attention in recent decades, and scholarly disputes continue concerning the historical importance of this tradition (or "paradigm") for thinkers in Britain, in the United States, and in countries in continental Europe. It is now clear that this tradition was important in France and that its importance was reaffirmed after the fall of the Second Empire and the (re)establishment of the Republic. 38 One dimension of the "republican" debate that remained current during the Third Republic was that of the relationship between sociopolitical stability and the "spirit" or morality of the citizenry. Malon and his contemporaries drew from a French tradition of republican socialism that focused on the weakness of individuals, the decadence of modern society, the value of the patriarchal family, and the importance of citizenship. This tradition was strongly influenced by ideals of virtue and civil religion, which, though of ancient lineage, had regained prominence in French discourse with the writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau. These writers and their nineteenth-century descendants focused not only on institutions, but also on what Montesquieu termed the "spirit" that animates the entire populace. They were particularly concerned with the sociopolitical consequences of individualism and untempered economic ambition, and they were especially critical of how these tendencies were encouraged in modern societies, in which decadence prevailed and selfishness was economically rewarded. Morality, properly developed, was a part of politics; and politics—republican politics—would flourish only if it was exercised in public and only if an altruistic concern for the public interest prevailed over private selfinterest.

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

109

Scholars have generally recognized the continuing importance of these concerns during the Revolution and after. There have been analyses, for example, of the "cult of antiquity" of prominent revolutionaries like Saint-Just and Robespierre, and recently there has been a renewed interest in the classical themes of the fêtes of the Revolutionary period. 39 Considering the Revolutionary identification of ancient institutions with the Terror, it is not surprising to find early nineteenthcentury liberals responding with a variety of critical stances, from the outright condemnation of Greek and Roman institutions (in the thought of Ideologues like C. F. Volney) to the measurement of the distance separating "ancient" from "modern" (in the thought of Benjamin Constant, for example) to the reconstruction of Athenian models that praise private property, civil liberties, and commerce (in, for example, the athènes bourgeoise of Pierre-Charles Lévesque and Victor Duruy). 40 Themes from this tradition also animated discussions on the Left during the nineteenth century, and Malon's concern with capitalist egotism, for example, is clearly related to general discussions of the absence of what Montesquieu and his descendants called "virtue." 4 1 This is not to suggest that subsequent French thinkers simply parroted the themes of Montesquieu and Rousseau; as contexts changed, so did the ideas espoused, the meanings of these ideas, and the uses to which they were put. But in the nineteenth century, thinkers returned frequently to these two seminal French sociopolitical thinkers, addressing republican themes of citizenship and public political participation and stressing social virtue over private morals. Clearly for Malon, proper social moeurs were critical, and his hope for a renewal of altruism was related to his sensitivity to the importance, again, of what Montesquieu referred to as the "spirit" of society. An intriguing progression of republican thinking occurred during the nineteenth century regarding the relationship between "virtue" and industry in which Malon's participation is evident. In Rousseau's formulation, for example, the survival of virtue was undermined by the development of commerce and industry. He referred to technological progress, money, and economic modernization as integral parts of the historical evolution that had strengthened inequality and, more generally, corrupted mankind. Virtue would not survive in commercial societies; it required the nurturing environment of small republics that stressed frugality and patriotism. Rousseau desired the participatory

110

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

republic of virtue, untempered by moderation and unsullied by commercial ambition. Republican views during the nineteenth century were less categorically opposed to economic change and industrial growth. Unlike Rousseau, who attacked all economic modernization, or the Physiocrats, who denigrated economic activities other than agriculture, nineteenthcentury socialists drew a distinction between profits from capital and profits from what French writers called industrie,42 Industrie referred to all of those economic domains that required labor and productive effort—farming, labor in factories and workshops, entrepreneurial activity, and (for some) the intellectual labor of savants. These activities were carefully distinguished from nonproductive activities, such as the idle living off accumulated wealth. Commerce was a contentious middle ground: for some it was the realm of idle nonworkers, who skimmed profits by serving as commercial intermediaries; others considered traders and shopkeepers essential participants in economic distribution, deserving of the respect accorded to other laborers (while noting that abuses were more common here than in other laboring occupations). A distinction commonly utilized in this analysis of industrie was that between capital in use, which was productive, and the "owners" of this capital, who generally were not productive. Financiers and the idle rich, it was argued, lived off the productive efforts of others, and they did not merit the extravagant profits their invested capital provided them. This argument was the basis of Malon's distinction between commerce and agiotage, or stock speculation, which will be considered in detail below. Stock speculation, Malon argued, had nothing to do with entrepreneurial activity or with the difficult decision making concerning the productive utilization of wealth; it was concerned merely with the manipulation of the market in a way that was personally profitable. Many writers during the nineteenth century suggested that workers joining together in productive labor would produce a revival of social virtue that would facilitate the creation of a new social consensus. That is, industrie was seen to be the locus for the regeneration of virtue. Malon espoused this view: he placed his hopes for the growth of altruism in the lower classes, in those not surfeited with luxury nor addicted to unproductive leisure. This concern effectively transformed the traditional republican notion of citizenship. For classical republicans, citizenship was based on landed property, which provided the independence and autonomy for political action. For nineteenth-

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

111

century French republican socialists, citizenship would be based on productive labor. 4 3 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, NATIONALISM, AND THE THIRD REPUBLIC H o w such republican ideals informed the thought of French socialists was closely related to their assessments of the previous French Republics, and more broadly, on their different appraisals of the French Revolutionary tradition. Malon's own judgment of the French Revolution was mixed. To the extent that the Revolution was responsible for temporarily ending monarchical tyranny and raising egalitarian ideals, it was to be commended. But it had come under the control of the bourgeoisie and as such had focused primarily on civil and political—not social—reforms. In addition, the Revolution was responsible for fostering an authoritarianism on the Left, a Jacobinism, that still played a damaging role within the socialist movement. 4 4 Malon defined the French Revolution as a bourgeois revolution. It was the bourgeoisie who took power in 1789, and it was "liberal bourgeois ideas that inspired the new political constitutions." 4 5 Bourgeois theorists of the nineteenth century were correct in claiming the Revolution was theirs. The land settlements of the Revolution benefited the middle class; political institutions were controlled by the bourgeoisie; laws were written to protect the bourgeoisie. What Malon termed the pivot of the new social organization was capitalist property—the absolute legal right of private property—which fostered the accumulation of wealth by the few and the growth of misery for the many. Most legislation was aggressively designed against the interests of the working class: the right of association was restricted by the Le Chapelier Law; even freedom of the press was limited to those with wealth. 4 6 But the Revolution did have a positive side: in calling for human emancipation, it produced a great regeneration of enthusiasm and anticipation. Malon wrote in 1892 that the Revolution had sounded the death knell for "sacerdotal, noble, and monarchical oppressions" and that it had furthered the gradual establishment of more just economic institutions by at least raising the social question. With the passing of the law on public assistance, it had recognized the right of all citizens to an honorable existence, by work if they were able and by assistance if they were invalids. In the law of public instruction, it had recognized the

112

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

value of all individuals, and the need to cultivate the capacities of rich and poor. The Revolution was "the first act" in the contemporary drama of human emancipation because it contained in its principles— liberty, equality, fraternity—the program of economic justice and social solidarity that needed to be fully realized. 47 The Revolution also indicated clearly for the first time the significance of the role of le peuple. It was the most formidable popular uprising ever to occur, despite the resulting legal and institutional structure, which benefited the bourgeoisie. In fact, the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat dated from the first decisive victories of the bourgeoisie over the Old Regime in 1789-91. 4 8 Bourgeois theorists of the nineteenth century, intent on claiming the Revolution as their own, frequently denied the actions of le peuple in the Revolution. 49 But the masses did play an important role in the Revolution; even if few revolutionaries called for a social revolution to complete the civil and political revolution, workers could look back with pride on their role and draw the appropriate lessons for the future. Malon's mixed assessment of the French Revolution echoed longstanding debates on the Left concerning the meaning and significance of the Revolution. 30 Equally contentious and long-standing were left-wing assessments of the usefulness and adequacy of republican institutions in France. Because of historical experience, the French Left had long held an ambiguous view of the Republic. Although it stood for civil liberties and political rights, for progress, and for secular improvements, the Republic in its various incarnations (1792, 1848, 1870) had always been conservative and unsympathetic to fundamental social reform. This tension was heightened during the 1870s and 1880s. The Communards believed they had saved the Republic in 1870. Moreover, the calls for amnesty during the 1870s for convicted and exiled Communards were frequently based on the belief that the true republic required the participation and protection of these ardent republican patriots. But the denial of amnesty year after year until 1879 and 1880 could also support a contrary logic, based on the identification of the Republic with the reaction, and the Commune with the people. The symbolic power of these competing logics helps explain why the amnesty issue was so hotly contested during the 1870s. 51 From the perspective of the Right, amnesty would undermine the Republic by providing more troops for the social revolution of the future. From the perspective of

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

113

the Left, amnesty would make the Republic acceptable for the same reason. This problem reemerged in particularly striking fashion in the 1880s and 1890s, as socialists began contemplating the prospect of involvement with or the overthrow of the "bourgeois" Third Republic. As described earlier, Malon changed his stance twice. In the late 1870s, he rejected abstention from all bourgeois politics and advocated the use of electoral procedures for the realization of social reforms, though the final socialist transformation would still require a revolution. In the early 1880s, he moved yet farther to the Right when he expressed his hope that violent revolution might be avoided altogether. He suggested that the socialist transformation might be fully achieved by utilizing the ballot box. The stance of Malon and La Revue socialiste was to defend the institutional structure of the Third Republic, viewing the Republic as the most favorable institutional context within which to bring about socialism. In 1885, for example, the editorial staff of La Revue socialiste took a public stance in support of the defense of the Republic against the threat of monarchism, stating that "socialists consider that the Republic is the only large field of socialist action and that we are obliged, if circumstances so demand, to defend it." 5 2 During the legislative elections of the same year, La Revue socialiste supported an electoral coalition of left-wing parties, the Coalition socialiste révolutionnaire, which included Blanquists, Guesdists, and Independent Socialists (the Possibilists associated with Brousse ran on a separate list). Malon even cooperated briefly with the organizational committee for the Paris Exposition of 1889, until he realized that the social economy exhibit for the Exposition would not be organized exclusively by socialists, as he had been told, but rather would be controlled by bourgeois economists. 53 The most dramatic indication of Malon's new, more fervent attachment to the Republic came during the Boulanger crisis in the late 1880s. Benefiting from the general economic dislocation of the 1880s, General Boulanger's calls for republican "revision" gained considerable support from the Left, especially from Blanquists, but also from Marxists like Lafargue and from reformists like May and Hugues. Malon and Fournière were sufficiently concerned to publish an article (May 1888) attacking Boulanger and warning against precipitous action that could

114

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

undermine the Republic. 54 They emphasized the economic causes of worker discontent and the timeliness of demands for widespread reform. The Republic, they pointed out, had failed to fulfill its proper historical function of serving the people; it had failed to turn the Third Republic into a social and moral Republic. 55 This had created "the irresistible current of discontent of which Boulangism [was] the expression." 56 But while reform was needed, Boulanger offered the wrong reform. He promised not social progress, but political disaster. Instead of calling for economic, social, or moral advancement, he wished to distract the people with political change, change that was in fact regressive because it would undermine the Republic. Boulanger must be stopped, for "peace, liberty, order, justice, the existence of the Republic, perhaps even the safety of France, [were] at stake." 57 In short, though Malon believed that at times the Third Republic betrayed the republican ideal, it was the current best hope for socialist reform and needed to be protected against adventurers like Boulanger. "It is not possible," he wrote in 1888, "to remain indifferent before a governmental crisis so violent and so profound that it may place in peril our republican liberties and perhaps even the integrity of our dear and great French patrie."S8 Malon's defense of the Republic against reactionary adventurers like Boulanger reflected a sense of French nationalism that was frequently echoed in the writings of the French Left during the nineteenth century. 59 The majority of French socialists insisted that they were the true nationalists, willing to make sacrifices to protect France against foreign aggression, a patriotic legacy that extended back to the French Revolution. By 1792, the idea of the nation's "natural frontiers" within which the "sovereignty of the people" should be exercised was a clearly formulated principle in France. And for many French supporters of the Revolution, as well as for their descendants during the nineteenth century, such nationalism was not only compatible with the Revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, but an essential part of protecting these ideals in France and spreading their influence abroad. An enlightened nationalism was believed to have international revolutionary significance, because each nation, while claiming its separate identity, would also act upon similar revolutionary ideals in order to realize justice and human solidarity. This missionary sense of nationalism continued to animate socialists

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

115

of Malon's generation, and they believed that this was compatible with their dedication to internationalism. As we have seen, most members of the First International Workingmen's Association in Paris had initially condemned the war between Prussia and France in 1870. But the majority also shifted their position when it became a question of defending France against the invading Prussian armies. And it was the Left, we must remember, that wished to keep fighting in early 1871; it was the Left that refused to recognize the "humiliating" peace treaty that gave up Alsace-Lorraine. The republican tradition also reinforced the propensity of "citizens" to defend la patrie; and socialist republicans insisted that workers were the true citizens, and therefore the true patriots. This is not to imply that French socialists glorified the martial virtues and the independence bestowed by property ownership associated with the ideal of the ancient citizen-soldier. Socialists sought to delineate a less chauvinistic, more benevolent, and more inclusive polity than the classic participatory republic associated with Greece and Rome. But most socialists insisted that true French nationalism belonged on the Left, and called for the transformation of the standing army into a nation armée, a democratic army that would include all of the able-bodied. Socialists opposed the conservative glorification of "patriotic" national unity that was designed to negate class conflict and hamper socioeconomic reform, and they refused to identify patriotism with revanche against Germany. Such patriotic calls from conservatives marked the emergence of a virulent right-wing nationalism. 60 What this parallel development of a left-wing and a right-wing nationalism elicited from socialists was a new consciousness of the inherent tension between their patriotism and their internationalism. Socialists opposed patriotism when it was identified with the permanent army, with revanche, with popular celebrations of, say, the visit of French navy ships to Kronstadt in 1891 (to solidify the Franco-Russian alliance). Such unhappy associations could lead to an angry rejection of patriotism, as when Emile Joindy entitled an 1894 article in Le Partie ouvrier "Le Patriotisme, c'est l'ennemi." 61 It was during the same period that Allemane agonized over how successfully capitalists had transformed patriotism into an ideology designed to protect their economic interests by creating divisions between the workers of different nations. 62 Allemanists came to celebrate their sans-patrie.63 Anarchists created an organization that attacked patriotism—La Ligue des anti-patriots.

116

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

A more common strategy, however, was to attempt to save patriotism from such right-wing associations. Fourniére referred to right-wing nationalists as "les faux patriotes." 64 Socialists insisted that there was no fundamental incompatibility between their recognition of the patrienation and their ideals of justice and internationalism. Late nineteenthcentury socialists argued, like their predecessors, that France had an important role to play in the future socialist transformation because it was the home of the Revolution and Revolutionary ideals and because the French Republic provided a model for progressive political institutions. Even if the Republic required fundamental social reform (on this, all socialists agreed), it needed to be protected against the aggressive actions of less advanced countries. 65 The selective nature of the nationalism on the socialist Left in France indicates more than just the desire to distinguish its nationalism from right-wing nationalism: it demonstrates that nationalism per se did not have priority over other attachments and values. French socialists were nationalists when the nation in question represented the universal values of justice and progress, but they were antinationalists when the nation was conceived in reactionary and authoritarian terms. What was peculiar about the historical imagination of the Left in France was the tenacity with which French nationalism continued to be associated with the defense of the Republic (in 1793, in 1848, in 1 8 7 0 71, and so on) and with a commitment to the Revolutionary ideals for which the Republic stood. Socialists claimed that they were the true representatives of the national interest. Unlike the members of the possessing classes, who wished to protect their property and their own selfish interests, it was workers and socialists who stood for liberty and justice and were prepared to make virtuous sacrifices for the patrie. Few socialists would have objected to Millerand's proclamation of patriotism in his famous Saint-Mandé address of 1896, in which he maintained: "We should never forget that while we are internationalists, we are at the same time French and patriots. Patriots and internationalists, these are two titles that our ancestors of the French Revolution knew to nobly reconcile." 66 The issue of the socialist defense of the Republic would reemerge with particular starkness during the Dreyfus affair of the late 1890s and the subsequent entry of Millerand into the Waldeck-Rousseau government. Although Malon died in 1893, years before these explosive events, he had pushed French socialist theory far down the parliamen-

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

117

tary path, and it is important to note that his two closest associates, Rouanet and Fournière, joined with Jaurès in 1898 to support Dreyfus and that they both also defended the entry of Millerand into a "bourgeois" government. Malon's defense of the Republic during the 1880s was based on such patriotic sentiments, but also on his optimism that reforms would be forthcoming and that socialism was soon to be realized. He hoped that Le Socialisme intégral would "demonstrate that there is reason to conclude the necessity and the ineluctability, at the same time philosophical, political, and economic, of an approaching integral social transformation." 67 As this statement indicates, Malon was confronting, in his own fashion, the issue of the tension between the "opportunity" and "possibility" of social transformation and the "inevitability" of such change. History, he believed, was "progressive"; in his own words, "philosophy, history, social economy, and anthropology concur in marking the progressive orientation of human evolution."68 But Malon did not think that positive change was inevitable. Though at times he wrote passages that suggest a deterministic view of history, in general he insisted on the necessity of human effort to assure improvement; lacking such effort, progress could cease.69 Malon argued that the weight of change was impelling society toward socialism. We are less fatalistic, less optimistic than the illustrious author of Capital; history teaches us that historical probabilities are often belied by sudden regressions to incalculable disasters. But in the present case, doubt does not appear to us to be possible. The moral distress, the terror about the state of war, the agricultural and commercial evil, no less profound, no less intolerable than the industrial evil, the absurdities of all sorts, the iniquities and the waste of the economic world, the servitude and suffering of family life, all push humanity irresistibly toward the new path that collectivism alone is able to offer. 70

The language here suggests a moral commitment to the realization of integral socialism, and a belief that its attainment was likely. But Malon made it clear that he did not view it as inevitable. Indeed, in 1886, he looked with envy on those "imperturbable optimists" who believed "firmly in the fatality and continuity of progress." He admitted that he himself no longer enjoyed "this security in the future." 71 To clarify his position on the coming of socialism, he embraced the

118

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

scientist Claude Bernard's distinction between fatalism and determinism. Fatalism implied that the manifestation of a phenomenon could occur independently of its conditions; it was therefore an unscientific way of looking at social change. Determinism, on the other hand, was more scientific because its goal was to ascertain "the necessary condition of a phenomenon in which the manifestation is not forced." It therefore depended on a careful examination of the circumstances surrounding a phenomenon and the conditions that needed to exist for it to come into being. With proper appreciation of the context, one could "determine" the path to socialism.72 The thrust of Malon's argument was to avoid fatalism, but also to avoid the opposite exterme—utopianism. A fatalistic belief in the coming of socialism was naive because it rested on the belief that change could occur without human effort. A Utopian belief in the coming of socialism was equally naive because it rested solely on the conviction of those desiring it. Both neglected an adequate consideration of context, which required that the trajectory of social and historical change be understood and which appreciated that the contribution of human effort was essential. Observation without human effort would not lead to a modification of social relations. 73 But effort without appreciation of the constraints of the sociohistorical context was equally impotent. "Conviction is only a blind force," Malon pointed out, "when it is not clarified by the study of history and of social phenomena." 74 Malon's own study of history and social phenomena suggested that there was a great deal that would require human effort. His assessment of contemporary society was grim. There was what he called a philosophical crisis, characterized by the absence of any convincing synthetic conception of the world or of any shared morality. There was a political crisis, characterized by a renascent militarism. There was an economic crisis, characterized by capitalist exploitation. 75 Socialists needed to work on all fronts to rectify the gross inequities of modern society and to solve their debilitating economic, social, political, and moral effects. Progress, according to Malon, demanded change in all of these areas. His definition of socialism reflected this broad vision: We mean by integral socialism, socialism conceived in all its aspects, in all its elements of formation, with all its possible manifestations. Thus understood, socialism is the synthetic result of all the progressive activities of present humanity. By virtue of this, it ought to benefit, not only from political and economic progress, but also, and in all social directions,

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

119

from all the efforts of science, of philosophy, of social amelioration, of practical application [emphasis in the original].76 Socialism was a progressive change that should engage not just proletarians, but "all the sufferers, all the militants, all the hopeful." 77 The structure of Malon's best-known work, Le Socialisme intégral, reflected this agenda for reform. The first volume examined the "general tendencies" of socialism, while the second focused specifically on "possible reforms." 78 There are chapters on morality and religion, on the family, on the evolution of property, on the state, on international labor legislation, on communal services, and on many other aspects of society. Malon insisted that real socialism would be realized only when reforms were achieved on these many fronts; indeed, it was the interaction of reforms on many levels that was essential and that would characterize true progress toward socialism.79 But if true progress was integral or interactive progress, for heuristic purposes Malon separated his considerations of morality, family, property, and the state. For the analytical purposes of this study, it makes sense to follow Malon's lead, considering first his economic doctrines, then the specific social, political, and moral reforms that he envisaged. INTEGRAL SOCIALISM: SOCIOECONOMIC REFORM One of the principal objectives of socialism was to provide for the economic needs of all of the disadvantaged. And indeed, according to Malon, the most urgent task remained economic transformation. However much Malon insisted upon the need for moral improvement, equality of the sexes, or political reform, his emphasis was on economic reform. In general terms what was needed was "the rooting out of the wage-earning class . . . and its replacement by an interdependent organization of labor [une organisation solidariste du travail]"80 This would require both a "defensive" program and an "offensive" program. The defensive program would assure workers employment, education, and basic subsistence. It was comprised of three fundamental principles: first, the right to existence for all; second, the right of all able-bodied persons to a properly remunerated job; and third, the right of all children to a general and professional education.81 The first step toward providing such safeguards was the establishment of interna-

120

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

tional labor legislation limiting the workday to eight hours, eliminating most night work, providing for safety inspections of industries, and protecting women and children against exploitation. 82 Beyond this, it was necessary to set up a general system of "social insurance" to give assistance to the aged and the disabled and to provide public work for those who involuntarily found themselves unemployed. Malon was very critical of the existing programs of public and private assistance in France, believing that they failed to assure a basic "right to existence." And he believed that cooperatives, though important, were insufficient. 83 What was needed was the creation of a Ministry of Social Security. This ministry would oversee two programs. The first would provide insurance against such hazards as fire and weatherrelated disasters. Malon reasoned that such insurance should be obligatory for all, but he estimated that the rates would be one-third to one-half existing premiums, due to economies of scale and to the elimination of insurance company profits. The second program would provide insurance against sickness, accident, old age, and family deaths. This insurance would be supported by payroll deductions, by employer contributions (with hazardous industries charged relatively higher rates than safer ones), and by government monies generated by a progressive tax on inheritance and by the incomes from government industries like railroads, mines, and canals. 84 The defensive program was to be united with an offensive, or positive, program to create a socialist society. For Malon this meant that property and the instruments of labor would be collectivized and that the worker would receive in remuneration for his or her work the equivalent of the product of his or her labor, minus a portion to cover the expenses for education, disability, and other social programs. Malon continued to distinguish his program of reformist collectivism from a program of communism, which would place the forces and the products of production under the direct control of the state. In his collectivist solution, the forces of production would be placed "under the protection" of the state, but direction would remain in the hands of producers and their associations, and distribution among the ablebodied would depend on work performed. 85 Central to any such program was the elimination of financial speculation and the establishment, in its place, of industrial democracy. Malon's extended discussion of the evils of speculation, which first appeared in 1885, raised issues that were common in the writings of

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

121

French socialists during the nineteenth century. 86 He discussed, for example, how with the system of John Law in 1717 a new form of speculation had emerged, one that relied on buying and selling shares and that was characterized by the actions of a financial elite manipulating the value of the shares by both legal and illicit means, according to its perceived self-interest. Malon argued that this type of speculation—agiotage, or stock jobbing—was different from traditional commercial transactions that revolved around buying and selling merchandise, because it relied less on the value of goods and more on the ambition and greed of the speculators themselves. Such speculation had become widespread in France during the nineteenth century; successive governments consistently had favored a financial elite that benefited from agiotage, and there had been a wide acceptance of English free-market commercial ideals that glorified speculation, even when it undermined the stability of the overall economy and impoverished the majority of workers and their dependents. The history of agiotage in France as described by Malon was bleak: although speculators had been placed on the defensive during the early period of the French Revolution, when the inequitable tax system was dismantled and the Bourse temporarily closed, they later benefited from the sale of arms and food to the military, from speculation in assignats, and from the sale of biens nationaux, which placed most of the land, and most of the profits from the sale of the land, in the hands of the rich. Napoleon consolidated the wealth of these speculators as he solidified his own political power, even allowing them to control the newly created Banque de France. During the Restoration, the faction of forwardlooking nobles from the Old Regime joined with the nouveau riche to form a financial aristocracy. This new aristocracy was granted concessions by the government to build canals, oversee such national resources as coal and iron ore, and create new industries for the public, such as gas and bus service. Under the July Monarchy, a new bravado appeared—"speculation threw off the veil of modesty"—and the financial giants ambitiously launched new ventures that were promoted in the press. 87 The biggest scandals occurred in railroad speculation: speculators cut favorable deals with the government in which the government would pick up the tab for land purchases and construction costs if financial problems emerged. Profits for the rich speculators were thus assured, while the concept of the free market was used to justify the condition of unemployed and impoverished workers. Under the Second

122

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

Empire, political and financial adventurers acted in concert, even as individual liberties were trampled and small businesses were ruined. Malon quoted Proudhon: Dishonesty reigns in the moeurs, piracy in business. Under the appearance of regular and free transactions... charlatanism, corruption, infidelity, extortion, swindling, embezzlement, theft, flourish without any obstacles. . . . Out of any hundred newly enriched individuals, there are not four who are completely honest. . . . Everywhere one sees only shameless parasitism stuffing itself in the face of the astounded proletariat.. . . One speaks of the crimes of the Terror, of the infamy of the Directory, of the despotism of the Empire, of the corruptions of the Restoration and of the bourgeois Monarchy; compare these miseries with the dissoluteness of an epoch that has taken for its Ten Commandments the Stock Exchange and its works!88 According to Malon, the solution to the injustices created by speculation was to put production and wealth back into the hands of workers. More specifically, he advocated the institution of reformist collectivism. He also demanded an end to stock jobbing, which he believed could be achieved by progressively eliminating the public debt and by nationalizing financial monopolies like banks and credit institutions. 89 He insisted that the state had been "criminally negligent" in permitting the exploitation by greedy private interests of underground riches like coal and iron ore, of public utilities like gas and water, and of transportation like canals and railroads. Society must reassert its rights regarding such resources and begin to administer them with intelligence. This would entail the creation of compagnies ouvrières to direct the day-to-day operation of the mines and industries, and, more generally, state and communal "administration" of the economy. 90 Malon discussed extensively the type of state administration he believed was necessary in order to achieve integral socialism. 91 One reform on which he elaborated in considerable detail was the creation of a Ministry of Labor to gather information about salaries and the general economic climate, to arbitrate disputes between workers and capitalists, and to assure the application of international labor legislation to protect workers. More substantively, he suggested that such an agency would encourage progress toward collectivism by reorganizing labor in those economic concerns run by the state so that production would be rationalized and nonworking "parasites" eliminated. Because of the statistical information it commanded, a Labor Ministry would

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

123

prevent and/or help attenuate economic crises. And because it would organize the public works, it would oversee employment for the unfortunate few in normal times and for the dislocated multitudes in times of crisis. A Labor Ministry also would institute a consultative chambre ouvrière based on professional corporations that would present projects for industrial and commercial reform. Finally, it would begin the difficult task of reorganizing education on a broad front, to provide adequate agricultural, industrial, and commercial training. To bring about such reforms, Malon recommended an active role not only for the state, but also for the commune. 92 Unwisely "sacrificed by the monarchy and by the bourgeoisie," the commune was central to the hopes of socialists; it must be, according to Malon, "the pivot of future social life." 93 Indeed, as Malon expressed it, in the socialist concept, the local community . . . acquires great political and economic importance and becomes the genuine social unit. . . . The community will be a powerful aid in the general transformation of human relations, and when it has attained its greatest effectiveness, the role of the state will be reduced to the administration of national public services, conforming to the pact of federation [among the communes].94 The commune should provide the many services that only a local body could realistically appraise. It should begin by reexerting its control over communal domains, so inequitably eliminated during the Revolution and after. It could then take the lead in progressive steps: demolishing filthy, disease-ridden hovels and constructing simple, hygienic lodgings; building and maintaining roads and providing services such as water, electricity, gas, trams, and buses; setting up communal banks to provide easy and reasonable credit. It should also oversee such things as public schools, public assistance to the disabled and elderly, medical and pharmaceutical services, and public security. INTEGRAL SOCIALISM: POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORM Malon advocated a federalist and republican system of government. Although he suggested that many issues did not need institutional consideration—they could be decided by popular referendum—he also recognized the need for more permanent institutions based on "la précision du mandat." 9 5 Rather than making an appeal for the so-called universal suffrage of the French state, which in fact sacrificed women and minor-

124

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

ities to the majority and asked deputies to act on things about which they had no expertise, Malon called for two elected chambers. The first, the "political chamber," would be elected by truly universal suffrage and would have jurisdiction over diplomacy, public order, education, justice, and other public services.96 The second, the "economic chamber," would be based on corporatively organized professional elections and would, as its name implied, have jurisdiction over those practical economic reforms enumerated above. 97 Malon believed that only a new, truly representative political chamber could save France, and therefore Europe, from the growth of militarism and the increasing peril of a war of extermination that militarism had unleashed. In 1891, Malon wrote to Liebknecht that national rivalry was a real danger and that all socialists must work to defeat war and establish economic justice on a basis of international peace. 98 It was because of its unfortunate attachment to "force over right" that Europe had embarked on the frightful regime of colonial expansion, which "oppresses, enslaves, and pillages three continents: Asia, Africa, Australia." 99 The only hope was to make the state responsive to the people (who presumably wanted peace), to replace permanent armies with militias, and to organize a European federation to arbitrate international disputes. 100 Malon's discussion of the role of the state was informed by a distinction between the "government of people" and the "administration of things" that had seduced many French thinkers—Saint-Simon, Proudhon, Tocqueville, to name a few in the nineteenth century. "Government of people" connoted power relationships inappropriate for an equitable society, while "administration" was restricted to those actions necessary for economic renewal. As early as 1876, Malon had credited the anarchists with correctly demanding the abolition of the political state but had chastised them for failing to see that "administrative centralization" was essential. 101 A similar point was made in 1882. 102 In 1885 Malon again expressed reservations concerning the overly ambitious political action that was the basis of this distinction: In that which touches politics, socialists tend manifestly to dismantle the state as the ruler of men in order to strengthen the state as the administrator of objects. . . . The socialist majority sees the state as renter and controller and not—except in certain cases—as direct producer [emphasis in the original]. 103

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

125

However difficult to attain in practice, this political/administrative distinction has enjoyed an impressive history in French thought. Closely related to Malon's sociopolitical program was his call for reform of the family, an institution that presented what Malon at one time referred to as "the most complicated and tragic problem of human destiny." 104 The focus of his concern was the status of women, about which he articulated a position that echoed the feminism of Léo and dissented from the patriarchal dimension of the republican tradition. Malon argued that women had been exploited since antiquity and that modern history had registered little significant progress: though there had been hesitant progressive moves during the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Civil Code had effectively reinstituted feminine servitude. 105 Malon presented a very critical picture of male-female relations in nineteenth-century France. Among the bourgeoisie, marriages were arranged for position and money, and women were essentially placed in the servitude of men, entailing for women the "abnegation of all civil and domestic liberty." 106 Moreover, bourgeois women, however disadvantaged vis-à-vis their husbands, continued to arrange marriages for their daughters, in effect becoming pimps for alliances that were nothing more than legal prostitution. The position of lower-class women was even more pitiful: they shared the legal and political inferiority of bourgeois women but were more disadvantaged financially. Single bourgeois women, though stigmatized socially, would likely receive an income from their families. Lower-class women had no hope of such independent financial security, and their wages would average only 40 to 50 percent of males wages, absurdly low in themselves. This made it imperative for lower-class women "to place themselves with someone" or to work the streets—servitude or prostitution. 107 Even in those lower-class marriages founded on love and mutual affection, the accumulated experiences of exhausting overwork, inadequate housing, and the general precariousness of day-to-day existence often led to drifting, drinking, and brutality. The combined disadvantage of being a woman and being of the working class created a truly desperate situation. Malon thought that the relationship between a husband and a wife should emerge from mutual love and be based on equality and a common intellectual, affective, and moral life. Because the legal institution of marriage, at least as it existed in countries like France, worked

126

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

against such ends, Malon advocated in its place union libre. This did not mean that he was an enemy of the family or advocated "free love." He defended the monogamous family as "the most dignified union of the sexes" and lamented only that it had become degraded by the legal subordination of women and the "mercantile" preoccupations of the bourgeois class. 108 In a letter written in 1872, Malon denied that his stance against legal marriage was an attack on the family, commenting: "We wish to base [the family] on the moral unity of man and woman, on the absolute respect of human dignity, and on the free flight and harmonious development of each of the beings who compose it." 1 0 9 The legal recognition of marriage was less important than the saving of the family and the provision for equality within it. This would provide the best environment yet known to humanity for fostering mutual respect as well as for nurturing children, who also suffered legally and emotionally in the current climate of exploitation and suspicion. A focus on the family was common in the discourse of nineteenthcentury French socialists, though many were less comfortable than Malon in attacking traditional roles for men and women. 110 Rouanet, for example, argued in a series of articles published in La Revue socialiste in 1886 that it was more important to eliminate the need for women to work than to protect women in the workplace. 111 And Lafargue, though intermittently calling for some form of sexual liberation, had an ideal of women that confined them to the role of service to the family, performing the traditional chores of sewing, baking, and caring for children. Like Rouanet, he was critical of the manner in which capitalism had torn working-class women from the home and forced them to labor in factories. But his concern was less the exploitation of women in the workplace than the neglect of the household that this entailed. 112 Malon more boldly attacked the traditional view of women as having a clearly defined domestic role: he advocated equality in the family, opposing the notion that the family was a private sphere dominated by women. And he advocated equality on the job and in politics, opposing the idea that work and public power were exclusive rights of men. He was uncommonly sensitive concerning how law and moeurs combined to keep women in disadvantaged positions both at home and in the workplace. 113 Malon seemed to recognize that true reform would have to occur not only in institutions, but also in beliefs and social comportment. Malon's stance on human rights issues concerning workers and

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

127

women makes it difficult to credit the allegations by Edmund Silberner, Sternhell, and others that he was vehemently anti-Semitic. 1 1 4 He never specifically addressed the particular problems of the 8 0 , 0 0 0 Jews in France, and in La Revue socialiste he wrote at least one article condemning anti-Semitism. 1 1 5 His vulnerability to attack in this regard derives from his injudicious acceptance and use of phrases like "capitalist J e w , " his association with writers like Albert Regnard and Auguste Chirac, who did publish some distasteful anti-Semitic attacks in articles printed in La Revue socialiste, and his acceptance of assimilationist views that date from the Enlightenment. 1 1 6 The one article Malon specifically devoted to the "Jewish question" was a review of Edouard Drumont's La France juive published in 1 8 8 6 . 1 1 7 In this article, Malon denounced Drumont's anti-Semitism, insisting that "the s o c i a l i s t . . . is preoccupied with the repair, reordering, and rational organization of production and exchange rather than with being opposed to certain categories of individuals." Repudiating racism, Malon placed his faith in the "new fact of science and justice . . . , which will resolve the Jewish question as it will all others, by the universalization of moral development, of knowledge, of work, of duty, and of well-being, in the efflorescence of a superior civilization, the crowning glory of triumphant socialism." 1 1 8 Malon seemed to demand here that Jews, like other minorities, abandon their particular culture in favor of a universal humanism identified with socialism. Malon also had some kind words for Drumont, calling him the first conservative writer to criticize the massacres of the semaine sanglante, and a courageous opponent of the capitalist and financial elite. But, on the whole, Malon was critical of this "enfant terrible du parti cler i c a l . " 1 1 9 Drumont, he said, appears to us to be a sixteenth-century crusader, a fanatic of the faith ever ready to go to war against the enemies of God and the oppressors of the downtrodden. We, believers in human solidarity and aspirants to the duty of universal bounty, share neither his faith nor his hatreds. 120 Confusion concerning Malon's position has also resulted from a failure to understand the meaning of socialist rhetoric referring to Semites and the Aryan race, terms that have become highly charged in the twentieth century. For Malon, Semites included Christians as well as Jews. His references to the "noble Aryan race" were to the ancients— the magnificent Greeks and Romans—whose world was destroyed by

128

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

"the doctrines of Moses and Jesus." While this may contain an element that is hostile to Judaism, as well as to Christianity, it is accurately characterized as a broadly conceived anticlericalism that drew from a republican tradition that glorified the ancients and condemned those who it is assumed destroyed the classical world. The appearance of anti-Semitic articles in La Revue socialiste tends to support claims that Malon at least helped to perpetuate anti-Semitism in France. Intent on finding confrères who were anticapitalist, he was insufficiently critical of their anti-Semitism; at times the logic of his economic theories apparently obscured his ethical opposition to racism. Repeating what he meant by his special vocabulary was not sufficient— "Aryan" and "Semite" had racial connotations too strong to be defined away. Malon never sufficiently scrutinized the tissue of half-truths and fictions that anti-Semites were passing off as valid history and that infected the language he employed. Nonetheless, Malon was principally an anticapitalist, not an antiSemite in the style of Drumont. To lump them together obscures precisely those aspects of the matter—especially the prevalence of hidden prejudice in assimilationist programs—that are of historical interest. INTEGRAL SOCIALISM: ALTRUISM It was the moral side of Malon's thought that his contemporaries perceived as distinguishing his position from others on the French Left. Malon and his associates repeatedly insisted on distinguishing their integral position from the materialism of the Marxists. The morals of a society were important, and they could not be predicted by examining the socioeconomic base of that society. Malon disagreed with the view that each new form of society led necessarily to a new moral form, though social and moral change were interconnected. 122 But because they did not inevitably move together, morals must be given independent consideration. As Malon wrote in La Question sociale, "he who, in the study of social phenomena, neglects moral forces will surely deceive himself." 123 In La Morale sociale, Malon stated that man does not live only by economic and political demands [revendications]. And we socialists who work to realize a superior form of civilization ought to scrutinize all the suffering of the century, ought to keep abreast of all the great problems of human existence.... To think that all militants of human

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

129

renewal ought to be preoccupied only with the material interests of working humanity, and can with impunity neglect humanity's moral aspirations, is to prepare for a future of cruel miscalculations.124 Though the discussion of morality is present in virtually every book that Malon wrote, the one that most directly addressed this issue was La Morale sociale, published in 1885 and 1886. 1 2 5 In this book, characterized by Jaurès as a "rough sketch," Malon approached the question of morals historically, and he suggested that progress could be measured by increases in human sociability and altruism. 1 2 6 He admitted that the history of humanity had gone through stages of association and disassociation. But, on balance, reciprocity and sacrifice for the community were growing, and Malon believed that such progress would continue. 1 2 7 He suggested that each historical age provided some insight into sociability; La Morale sociale was constructed to demonstrate this progression. Indeed, like the historical sections of all Malon's books, this one uncritically selected from a wide variety of sources to make the case for the progress of history toward socialism. Lengthy citation follows lengthy citation to mark points on mankind's trajectory of moral and material becoming. 128 Though the general message of the book is guarded optimism, the opening pages lament the deplorable moral situation in which contemporary society finds itself. 129 The positive influence of religions and their moral codes is a thing of the past, according to Malon, and since there is no obvious successor, there is an unfortunate moral vacuum in the nineteenth century. This has left society prey to immorality; it has left human thought "compressed into the bourgeois mold" of "greedy egoism, corruption, violence, and cheating." 1 3 0 Morality, Malon tells us, had its origins in social organization. When people realized that they could no longer exist in isolation, they formed social bonds that included rudimentary standards of conduct. Morality is not innate; it derives from social interaction. "The necessity of association . . . is mother, not only of morality, but of the development of humanity," Malon observed. 1 3 1 Contemporaneous discussions of Social Darwinism are relevant here, because Malon believed that Darwin's theory applied only to humanity's presocial existence as an animal in competition with other animals. Such a Darwinian state ended, however, with the establishment of primitive associative relations and with the emergence of morality. Contrary

130

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

to nineteenth-century Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel, who argued that the "struggle for existence" continued to perfect the human species, Malon argued that it has been humanity's transcendence of the barbaric period of struggle that has marked true progress. The modern human struggle, pace Spencer et al., should not be characterized as a personal "struggle for existence," but rather as an "association for the struggle" by humanity against the rigors of the natural world. It was from primitive associative social relations that morality emerged, taking the form of a self-imposed limiting of one's immediate self-interest—what Malon usually termed altruism. Altruism was a development of pity and compassion; it stressed the needs of others and the good of society; it counteracted egoism. According to Malon, "continuous relations between individuals can develop only when brutal egoism has been tamed." 1 3 3 The program of altruism was summarized in the following simple formula, which Malon claimed was bequeathed by those "two masters of nineteenth-century thought, Auguste Comte and Arthur Schopenhauer": In social relations, justice and solidarity; In human relations, sincerity and goodness; In relations with other beings, moderation and pity.134 For Malon, the level of altruism in a given society was a measure of morality. He was optimistic, in spite of his grim assessment of the extent of modern egoism, that progress would be forthcoming. And he believed that an increase of social morality would be a constitutive element of the triumph of socialism. He called for a form of association, always becoming larger and more perfect, that will lead forcefully to the increasing predominance of altruistic sentiments over egoistic sentiments and, consequently, to a socialist or solidarist form of human government.135 Most of La Morale sociale deals with the development of morality in its religious, philosophical, materialistic, and pantheistic forms. But despite his espousal of a kind of evolution of morality, Malon was not reluctant to assess critically the morality of previous religions and philosophies against his own standard of altruism. He was critical of the Judeo-Christian tradition, for example, because rewards reflected the capricious intervention of God, rather than moral social behavior, and

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

131

because it advocated intolerance toward nonbelievers. 136 He expressed the highest admiration for Jesus—he especially liked the Sermon on the Mount—and for early Christian communities that were "inspired by the most complete communist fraternity." 1 3 7 He was critical, however, of followers of Jesus like Saint Paul and Augustine, who, Malon claimed, denigrated the value of secular human action such as work in favor of contemplation and who encouraged the slavish acceptance of dogma and secular political authority. In their hands, evangelical teachings became "the enemy of labor." 1 3 8 Malon argued that their religion of love becomes a religion of egoism by its exclusive preoccupation with individual salvation; it becomes a religion of antisocial practice by its preference for an imaginary world (to which one ought to sacrifice everything) over the real world. . . . [To this] it is necessary to add . . . the ecclesiastical intolerance that raged for fifteen centuries . . . [and] the unconditional respect for secular powers. 139 Malon presented a similar critical assessment of what he called official Christianity in Le Socialisme intégral and Lundis socialistes.140 Unlike the first Christian communities, which were egalitarian, the Catholic church, in becoming associated with the powerful and the rich, "was obliged to impose silence on the sentiments of justice" and commanded "the acceptance of all servitudes and of all social iniquities." 141 The dominant Christian moral ideal, according to Malon, was the reliance on divine grace, an unfortunate notion that had encouraged people to believe that human will was impotent, a belief that could only encourage a fatalistic acceptance of extant secular evils. 1 4 2 Malon believed, in fact, that Christian civilization had evolved and now stood in such fundamental opposition to modern science and modern values that, however much some might wish to restore it to some semblance of life, it was actually "completely dead." 1 4 3 One must, in short, look elsewhere for the "flame of humanity." 1 4 4 Other historical examples had more to offer humanity in its quest for a model for social morality. The Stoics, for example, had exemplary moral ideals, though Malon regretted that they had no social politics, thereby leaving the field open to religious fanatics. 1 4 5 Kant received especially high praise for his insistence that all beings be treated as ends, not as means, and for formulating the categorical imperative. But again, according to Malon, he erred in seating morality in "this indecisive and moving thing called the human conscience" rather than in "affective

132

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

sentiments and social interests." 146 Malon gave even higher praise to contemporaries and near contemporaries who recognized the social dimension of morality: J. S. Mill, Schopenhauer, and Comte. 147 Malon suggested in Le Socialisme intégral that morality must be sought not in the upper classes, surfeited with egoism and leisure gained at the expense of others, but in the working class. "In order to know what must come," he explained, "it is necessary to observe what passes, not in the high regions but in the humbler regions [emphasis in the original]." 148 Here, according to Malon, one would find compassion for those who suffer and the feelings of altruism and mutual solidarity that must be the basis for the construction of just social relations. Malon never really provided a philosophical exposition of altruism. He seemed, in fact, consciously to avoid confronting such intractable philosophical questions as the seat or base of altruism. In 1882, Malon claimed that it was immaterial whether altruism was an irreducible sentiment or, alternatively, a modification of egoism, as claimed by those who favored enlightened self-interest. It was unnecessary to make a pronouncement on such a "big philosophical and scientific question." What was needed was to act altruistically, to reject a degraded theological basis for social morality, and to militate against the individualism of bourgeois society. 149 Socialists were frequently attacked for their naive views of human nature, for going against natural laws, and for proposing Utopian visions. 150 In one of his last books, Lundis socialistes, Malon attempted to address some of these criticisms. 151 Against the view that socialism would stifle human growth because it would reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator, Malon argued that, unlike capitalism, socialism would provide the means for all individuals to realize their full potential. This would be facilitated by the rational reorganization of industry, which would enable workers to earn a living wage by working five to six hours each day, thereby leaving time for leisure and educational activities. Further, Malon asserted that with the elimination of unjust economic relations, and with improvements in education, altruistic sentiments would blossom. To the related criticism that humans were moved only by private interest and would therefore lack incentive for work in a collectivist society, Malon responded that socialist society would leave sufficient room for individual initiative. In a reformist collectivist society, individuals would be remunerated for actual labor performed, and those

La Revue socialiste and Integral Socialism

133

who were able-bodied but refused to work would be excluded from the free associations that would provide a context for leisure-time social activity (associations that would focus, for example, on philosophy or literature or scientific advances). In addition, jobs would be classed according to their difficulty, risk, and unpleasantness; and remuneration would vary according to this classification. In short, workers in Malon's collectivist society would not all receive equal pay, and there was therefore room for materialistic ambition; those who chose not to work would suffer the social and economic consequences. Malon claimed that the issue of economic justice quite simply must prevail. If this left little opportunity for some individuals to reap huge profits at the expense of the well-being of their neighbors, then so be it; there were some forms of individual initiative that society could well do without. Shaped by the experiences of the Commune and exile and by his disagreements with anarchists and Marxists, Malon thus returned to France with a broad definition of socialism that demanded the simultaneous reform of economic, social, political, and moral relations. He devoted his final years to delineating concretely the reforms needed to achieve integral socialism, and to founding the journal La Revue socialiste, which he hoped would bring socialists together and keep the idea of reformist socialism in the public eye. Malon's mature socialism called for comprehensive changes in socioeconomic relations, including international labor legislation; elimination of agiotage; protection of the elderly, disabled, and unemployed; collectivization of the means of production; and state and local "administration" of the economy, with control of production left in the hands of workers and their associations. Equally important were his sociopolitical reforms, which included a truly democratic political chamber, an economic chamber based on corporate representation, a European federation to arbitrate international disputes, free and comprehensive education for all, and family reform to eliminate patriarchy and establish gender equality. Finally, he insisted on moral reform, promoting altruism over egoism and, more generally, encouraging a truly social conscience in all people. It was a socialism that drew from a strong tradition of left-wing French republicanism, refashioned by Malon into a democratic reform-oriented socialism that, he believed, would avoid the pitfalls of both Marxist authoritarianism and anarchist utopianism.

Conclusion C'est parce que tu es un piocheur, un remueur d'idées, un socialiste studieux, que je t'ai toujours estimé, et admiré, et cité comme exemple aux autres.1

Malon's health failed rapidly in the early 1890s. In March 1891, he wrote to Liebknecht that his physical condition forced him to remain in the south of France eight months a year. 2 By early 1893, he could scarcely work. On 10 February, in Cannes, Malon had a tracheotomy to arrest a cancer of the throat, and the operation left him unable to talk—he was forced to use a slate to communicate. He stayed for a while in Nîmes, then returned to Paris in May. His condition did not improve, and on 13 September 1893, Malon, only fifty-two years old, died. He was cremated and buried at Père-Lachaise cemetery. Malon's death came just after the 1893 general elections that sent nearly fifty socialists to the Chamber of Deputies. He died, therefore, at the beginning of a period when even his old rivals, the Guesdists, were coming to embrace the reformist strategy of which he had been the most visible advocate. In the words of Madeleine Rebérioux, " a new epoch opened in the history of socialism," with the appearance of an invigorated and apparently unified socialist movement committed to reformism. 3 Many socialists looked optimistically to future elections to bring socialists to power. Malon had warmly welcomed what he referred to as the "political reconciliation" among the numerous socialist factions in 1891; unfortunately he did not live to see the extent of the electoral victories that followed. 4 A measure of Malon's contemporary prominence was the crowd attracted to his funeral and, for years after, to the ceremonies held on 135

136

Conclusion

the anniversary of his death. The police estimated that between 1,500 and 2,000 people attended the funeral at Père-Lachaise on 17 September 1893. 5 Four years later, a commemorative ceremony attracted 200 persons. 6 A committee was formed in 1894 to erect a monument to Malon, but sufficient funds were not amassed until 1913, when a monument sculpted by Bartholomé was raised on the site of Malon's grave in Père-Lachaise, facing the mur des Fédérés. At the dedication ceremony that took place on 9 November 1913, L'Humanité estimated that more than 1,000 people attended in the rain. 7 There were speeches by Fournière and Renard, Malon's friends and collaborators on La Revue socialiste, and there was the reading of a letter from Guesde, a symbol of reconciliation. There were short speeches by international figures including Eden Paul (England), Otto Pohl (Austria), and Xavier de Carvalho (Portugal), among others. The longest speech was given by Jaurès, who emphasized Malon's conciliatory role in combining the tradition of revolution with the need for progressive reform. Malon, he pointed out, had not only marked socialism with French genius but had overcome the petty differences of faction. Few accolades would have gratified Malon more. Malon's most enduring legacy to French socialist thought was the development of a fully articulated reformist program, which theoretically accommodated socialism to the Third Republic and to parliamentary institutions. The exercise of popular sovereignty through representative institutions was a contentious issue for activists and theorists on the French Left, although republican institutions were attracting significant popular support by the late nineteenth century, even among workers. 8 Many thinkers on the French Left avoided embracing a politics that championed debate and day-to-day political contestation, viewing these as diversions from revolution or arguing that mundane political infighting gave unwarranted prominence to private (and usually bourgeois) interests over the interests of society as a whole. The debate on the Left often resonated with Rousseauist themes of the dangers of factions and of the victory of particular wills over the "general will"; and like Rousseau, many socialists searched for a vehicle for social transformation that would spare men and women from the wearying debate and unedifying confrontation of parliamentary politics. 9 This impatience with representative democracy was an integral part of the Jacobin tradition, which saw politics as a battle between the government of "the people" and an unpatriotic adversary. 10 Even more

Conclusion

137

broadly it was a result of the fractured heritage of the Revolution. The bewilderingly complex discussions during the nineteenth century concerning the true meaning of the Revolution led to a number of different Revolutionary traditions; "descendants" with widely divergent visions all claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the series of events we now refer to as the French Revolution. What proved to be so disruptive to subsequent politics was not just the division between Right and Left— between the counterrevolution and the Revolution—but the division even among those in agreement about the positive legacy of the Revolution. Did the Revolution justify a constitutional monarchy, a moderate republic, an egalitarian republic, or an authoritarian democracy? Was it symbolized by 1789 or 1793? Was the culmination of Revolutionary reform achieved in 1830, 1848, or the early 1870s; or were these just dialectical stages of a longer-term trajectory of egalitarian transformation? On the Left, the Revolution spawned an enduring heritage of division, rather than a powerful unifying national symbol. The fragmentation bequeathed by the Revolution helps account for the incredible instability of subsequent French politics.11 So too does the common belief that recourse to revolution was part of the tradition of the French Revolution. Disgruntled and impatient political "outsiders" thought less frequently about working for a peaceful alternation of power than about overturning existing institutions and constituting a "new order"—a "new order" that gained its legitimacy by referring back to the great national constituting myth, the Revolution. One of Malon's contributions to the thought of the socialist Left was to advance powerful arguments against resorting to revolution. By the mid-1880s, he was arguing that the institutional structure of the Third Republic provided a congenial context within which to pursue socialist change; he recommended electoral representative politics and exhorted socialists to protect the Republic in times of crisis. Assessment of Malon's impact on French socialism is complicated by the fact that he did not create an exclusive cadre or a school, but his reformist stance was well known and influential on the Left. His general tolerance and reasonableness provided an example to socialists of succeeding generations, and his name was often linked with such characteristics. Fourniere suggested that Malon broadened the appeal of socialism through his effectiveness as an educator, a propagandist, and a conciliator.12 Malon's most direct descendants are among the well-known reform-

138

Conclusion

ist socialists of subsequent generations. Jaurès, for example, who was eighteen years Malon's junior and embraced socialism only in 1892—93, the final year of Malon's life, agreed with Malon on most fundamental issues. Malon's associate Rouanet sensed this ideological convergence even before Jaurès had declared himself a socialist, and in an article devoted to the tariff question written in 1887 he referred to the young Radical deputy as "one of us." 13 After Jaurès converted to socialism, the association was closer: in 1892, he published his translated Latin thesis on German socialism in Malon's La Revue socialiste; in 1894, he wrote an introduction for a new edition of Malon's La Morale sociale; in 1895-96, he used La Revue socialiste to present a detailed discussion of his vision of socialist organization; and in 1913 he gave the laudatory speech to dedicate the statue of Malon in Père-Lachaise.14 Jaurès viewed socialism as the modern expression of the deepest moral instincts of mankind. 15 Believing in the unity of history and the march of progress (Kolakowski refers to his "evolutionary pantheism"), Jaurès suggested that the aim of socialism was to subordinate the achievements of the past to life in the present and to reconcile "dialectical socialism . . . with moral socialism, German socialism with French." 16 Jaurès directly invoked Malon's name and ideal, observing that "integral socialism, set forth by Benoît Malon, [is] where socialism appears not as a narrow faction, but as humanity itself; where socialism seems to be the image of humanity, of eternity [emphasis in the original]." 17 Jaurès was always more drawn to reform than to revolution, and he argued that the quest for social justice in France required socialist participation in republican politics. However tainted by bourgeois domination, the Third Republic, Jaurès believed, could be transformed into a useful instrument for reform, and he devoted much of his active public life working to fashion a broad reformist coalition on the socialist and republican Left. Jaurès followed Malon, therefore, in sustaining a socialist stance that rejected revolution as the preferred means to socialism and that recognized parliamentary deliberation as the appropriate means for exercising national sovereignty. He maintained that it was "not by an unexpected counterstroke of political agitation that the proletariat [would] gain supreme power, but by the methodical and legal organization of its own forces under the law of democracy and universal suffrage." 18 Jaurès's stance of "revolutionary evolution" was

Conclusion

139

an appeal for majority action within the context of electoral democracy, job security, and the expansion of educational opportunities. 19 Echoes of Malon are also pronounced in Jaurès's discussions of concrete reforms and the general direction of socialist change. In his examination of the issue of socialist organization published in 1895, for example, Jaurès insisted on his commitment to collectivism—believing it to be "the concrete goal of socialism"—and claimed that present injustices required the intervention of society in economic relations. But like Malon, Jaurès was careful to distinguish his own collectivism from the type of collectivism that would entail the centralized control of the economy, the elimination of small family farms, and the intervention by the state in issues related to individual consumption. He emphasized the importance of geographic and professional decentralization, noting that it would be "necessary to decentralize and appeal everywhere to the autonomy and to the spontaneity of groups and individuals." 20 He argued that the sovereign social right of property should be vested in the nation, but he insisted that the use of such property would be in the hands of regional agents, such as cooperative societies, trade unions, and local government units. 21 The pervasive influence that Malon exerted on Jaurès and other reformists was related to his advocacy of concrete reforms and his refusal to reduce socialism to one dimension or one flashy slogan. Having distanced himself from the insurrectionism of the anarchists during the 1870s and from the intransigent revolutionism of the Marxists during the 1880s, Malon advanced a reformist socialism that promised no immediate Utopia. He was too conscious of the complexity and multidimensionality of reality to believe that one simple economic or revolutionary manipulation would produce a perfect society. He insisted that reform must be achieved on many levels at once; socialist success would remain elusive unless it was interactive reform, unless it was integral. Malon refused to focus exclusively on material equality, maintaining that an emphasis on material needs alone was insufficient. Equally critical of economic liberalism, which advocated pursuit of economic selfinterest, and Marxist materialism, which assumed that economic deprivation alone would lead to class consciousness and class war, Malon embraced a socialism that insisted on the elimination of all exploitation. Socialism was born of the outrage that resulted from recognition of

140

Conclusion

injustice and exploitation. Consequently, it must give attention to all forms of want and exclusion, and it must measure progress in terms of moral and social advancement as well as greater economic justice. Malon exemplified what Jean Maitron has referred to as the "native sensibility to injustice" that nurtured a "missionary temperament" among militants of the late nineteenth century.22 Though economic reform necessarily remained a central dimension of socialist reform, Malon refused to accept simplistic formulas. He claimed that labor was the normal condition for adults and should be required of all, and he argued that social injustice could be largely overcome if factories and the instruments of labor were controlled by those who labor. Simple nationalization, which Malon believed would be regressive and inefficient without local workers' control, was not the answer, nor was the total elimination of all central direction. Socialism demanded interaction between sectors of the economy and the connection of these economic functions to the conscious centers of society, even as it should avoid the subordination of economic functions to these centers.23 To make this distinction clear, Malon appealed to the difference between political centralization and administrative centralization—a dichotomy that informed the theories of many social thinkers in France during the nineteenth century. However obscure such distinctions may become in practice, it is clear that Malon was sensitive to the difficulties of implementing coordinated social reform without inducing organizational chaos or paralysis. On the spectrum of left-wing social visions, Malon's vision was situated between anarchism and Marxism. Like Marxists, Malon had reservations about the idea that exploitation could be eliminated by spontaneous insurrections against all authority. Malon feared that in many contexts insurrection would be regressive—dangerous, obviously, to insurrectionists themselves and generally detrimental to the daily lives of workers. He also warned that an associative transformation of the economy without consideration of general administrative needs would fail to address many issues—specifically, those social services that transcended the competence of a given region. Like anarchists, on the other hand, Malon was concerned about the authoritarian implications of politically directed reform "from above." The political system in France was characterized by a dangerously high degree of centralization, a legacy of the Old Regime perpetuated by the Jacobin wing of the Revolutionary tradition. Malon, despite his reser-

Conclusion

141

vations about cooperative or mutualist socialism, was haunted by the dangers of an overbearing state, and he saw federalism as the best hope for avoiding political coercion and excessive socioeconomic bureaucratization. Contrary to the claims of the anarchists, politics was necessary, but Malon believed that the worst excesses of state intrusiveness could be contained by limiting the competency of national government to specific areas and by insisting that much economic decision making remain at the local level. Malon's mature program, therefore, was consciously designed to provide a via media between the etatiste vision of the Marxists and the anti-etatiste vision of the anarchists. Malon was opposed to both Marxist and anarchist theory in other important respects. After the mid-1870s, for example, he considered participation in "bourgeois" politics potentially beneficial. He had reached this position partly in reaction to the brutal repression of the Commune and the Utopian embrace of insurrectionism by Italian anarchists. He did not question the legitimacy of the popular outrage that propelled revolts or doubt that exploitation was a principal "cause," but he worried about the costs for workers and questioned the motives of insurrectionist leaders. Revolutions by definition were dramatic upheavals; they could be valuable, but those who usually suffered most were the poor. Because human costs were high, revolutions could be justified only if the chances of success were good and the prospects of enduring benefits likely. Malon had also come to believe that many revolutionary leaders—the anarchists in Italy, for example—were too cavalier in recommending revolutionary upheaval, too willing to turn workers into pawns for their own self-aggrandizement. Malon's apprehension about insurrection was balanced by his positive assessment of reformist action. Part of the obvious appeal of reforms was that they improved people's lives in concrete and tangible ways. But more broadly, Malon reasoned that concessions from the state, gained through political means, were steps toward the defeat of the present order and should not be interpreted as an acceptance of the "bourgeois" system. Anarchists and political revolutionaries were incorrect when they argued that the only two options were to work for the violent overthrow of the state or to compromise workers' autonomy by participating in the capitalist economy and "bourgeois" politics. Malon considered this a false dichotomy because he believed that pursuing reform did not necessarily exchange workers' autonomy for short-term economic and political benefits. Wresting reforms from the

142

Conclusion

state was in fact subversive because it generated further demands for change. The societies most likely to realize progress, Malon argued, were not those that had resisted all change, but exactly those that had begun to reform themselves. Malon adopted a Tocquevillian argument that the most precarious time for societies was when they began to reform themselves, because the legitimacy of traditional ways had been called into question and the expectation for further improvements was high. Unlike conservatives, however, Malon celebrated these unstable eras: a traditional society characterized by a crisis of legitimacy and high popular expectations offered hope. Justice was the great cause of Malon's life; he called it socialism. 24 It remained his cause through persecution and imprisonment, through the tragedy of the Commune, the agonies of exile, the struggles of the 1880s, and his persistent poverty. He believed that if socialists could transcend their differences and work together for reasonable and broadbased reform, oppression and injustice could be overcome. Malon fought the modern malaise of cynicism; his final words to Fourniere were "I still want to hope." 25

Notes

PREFACE 1. See Tony Judt, Marxism and the French Left: Studies on Labour and Politics in France, 1830—1981 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); François Furet, La Gauche et la Révolution Française au milieu du XIXe siècle: Edgar Quinet et la question du jacobinisme [1865-1870] (Paris: Hachette, 1986). 2. Jacques Julliard, La Faute à Rousseau: Essai sur les conséquences historiques de l'idée de souveraineté populaire (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1985). 3. For a more extensive discussion of the current agonizing about the Left, see my "Penser la Gauche française," History of European Ideas 9 (1988): 5 9 7 - 6 0 0 ; 10 (1989): 77-83, 2 3 7 - 4 1 . 4. On mutualism, see my Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of the French Republican Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984); on syndicalism, my "Interpreting Georges Sorel: Defender of Virtue or Apostle of Violence?" History of European Ideas 12 (1990): 2 3 9 - 5 7 . INTRODUCTION 1. Gabriel Deville, Principes socialistes, 2d ed. (Paris: Giard et Brière, 1898), XX—xxvii; Zeev Sternhell, Ni droite ni gauche: L'Idéologie fasciste en France (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1983); Léon Blum in the preface to François Simon, Une Belle Figure du peuple: Benoit Malon, sa vie, son oeuvre (Courbevoie: La Cootypographie, 1926), 5. 2. "Undeservedly neglected" is David Stafford's assessment of the state of scholarship on Malon; see Stafford's From Anarchism to Reformism: A Study of the Political Activities of Paul Brousse within the First International and the French Socialist Movement, 1870—90 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,

143

144

Notes to Pages 2 - 4

1971), 2. For the portrayal of Malon, see Georges Lefranc, Le Mouvement socialiste sous la Troisième République (Paris: Payot, 1977), 1:83. 3. According to Carl Landauer, Malon was "the creator of [reformism's] intellectual and spiritual foundations" ("The Origin of Socialist Reformism in France," International Review of Social History 12 [1967]: 104; see also 8 1 107). Leslie Derfler similarly suggests that Malon "provided reformists with intellectual inspiration" (Socialism since Marx: A Century of the European Left [New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973], 43). 4. This story is related by Emile Vandervelde, Souvenirs d'un militante socialiste (Paris: Editions Denoel, 1939), 160. The historian J. Hampden Jackson has suggested that Malon and Marx were the two greatest influences on Jaurès's conception of socialism and that Malon's Le Socialisme intégral (published in 1890-91) "set the tone for Social Democracy for the next fifty years" (Jean Jaurès: His Life and Work [London: Allen and Unwin, 1943], 33). 5. Some members of this generation are better known to historians than others, and a few have been the focus of very competent studies. See Claude Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste en France (1893-190S): Les Guesdistes (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1965); William Henry Cohn, "Paul Lafargue: Marxist Disciple and French Revolutionary Socialist" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1972); Stafford, From Anarchism to Reformism; Jolyon Howorth, Edouard Vaillant: La Création de l'unité socialiste en France (Paris: Syros, 1982); J. R. Jennings, Georges Sorel: The Character and Development of His Thought (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985); Shlomo Sand, L'Illusion du politique: Georges Sorel et le débat intellectual 1900 (Paris: La Découverte, 1985); Leslie Derfler, Paul Lafargue and the Founding of French Marxism, 1842-1882 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991). Malon, however, has never been the focus of a comprehensive study. 6. Roger Soltau, French Political Thought in the Nineteenth Century (1931; reprint, New York: Russell & Russell, 1959), 430-31. 7. Cf. Judt's Marxism and the French Left, which still attempts to understand the history of the French Left during the nineteenth century in terms of the history of Marxism. 8. The early history of this French republican socialism is the topic of my Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism. 9. On the republican tradition, see J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), and Virtue, Commerce, and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). For France, see Claude Nicolet, L'Idée républicaine en France: Essai d'histoire critique (Paris: Gallimard, 1982); and Richard Vernon, Citizenship and Order: Studies in French Political Thought (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986). 10. See Siân Reynolds, "Marianne's Citizens? Women, the Republic and Universal Suffrage in France," in Women, State and Revolution: Essays on Power and Gender in Europe since 1789, ed. Siân Reynolds (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1987), 102-22; and Joan B. Landes, Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988). 11. This patriarchalism was dominant among socialists, but there were ex-

Notes to Pages 4 - 8

145

ceptions. See Leslie F. Goldstein, "Early Feminist Themes in French Utopian Socialism: The St.-Simonians and Fourier," Journal of the History of Ideas 43 (1982): 91-108; Claire G. Moses, "Saint-Simonian Men/Saint-Simonian Women: The Transformation of Feminist Thought in 1830s France," Journal of Modern History 54 (June 1982): 240-67, and French Feminism in the Nineteenth Century (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984). For the later period, see Charles Sowerwine, Sisters or Citizens? Women and Socialism in France since 1876 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). 12. The centrality of labor and workers in socialist discourse—and the conscious and unconscious exclusions that form a part of this discourse—is examined in my "Representations of Labor and Workers in Nineteenth-Century French Socialist Thought," in Intellectuals and Political Life, ed. J. Farquhar et al. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, forthcoming). 13. On syndicalism, see the recent books by Jeremy Jennings, Syndicalism in France: A Study of Ideas (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), and Jacques Julliard, Autonomie ouvrière: Etudes sur le syndicalisme d'action directe (Paris: Gallimard/Seuil, 1988). CHAPTER ONE 1. Benoît Malon, Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises (Paris : Chevalier, 1872), iv, and Histoire du socialisme, new ed. (Paris: Derveaux, 1883), 2:596. 2. For biographical details, see Benoît Malon, "Fragment de mémoires," La Revue socialiste (January 1907): 1-10; (February 1907): 97-106; (April 1907): 307-20; (June 1907): 496-507; Quly 1907): 16-25. See also the entry for Benoît Malon in Jean Maitron, éd., Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français, vol. 7: Deuxième partie, 1864—1871 (Paris: Les Editions Ouvrières, 1970), 230—34; Simon, Une Belle Figure; Théodore Beregi, La Vie et l'oeuvre de Benoît Malon (Arras: Impr. S.E.P., 1965); Eugène Spuller, Figures disparues: Portraits contemporains politiques et littéraires, 3d ser. (Paris: Alcan, 1894), 2 3 3 - 5 1 ; Paul Lombard, Au berceau du socialisme français (Paris: Editions des Portiques, 1932), 4 5 - 5 8 ; Léon Cladel, "Un Penseur socialiste: Benoît Malon," appearing at the beginning of the second edition of Malon's La Morale sociale: Genèse et évolution de la morale (Paris: Girard et Brière, 1893), i—xvi; Nenah Elinor Fry, "Integral Socialism and the Third Republic (1883 to 1914)," (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1964), 9 - 4 3 . 3. "Fragment de mémoires" (February 1907), 102-6; (April 1907), 307-9. 4. "Fragment de mémoires" (June 1907), 496-502. 5. "Fragment de mémoires" (July 1907), 20—21. There is a legend, often repeated, that Malon did not read until a teenager. His "Fragment de mémoires" indicates that this is not true. Malon's opinion of Meslier would change dramatically. In 1890, he wrote that Meslier "fut et restera l'un des plus sagaces représentants du communisme dans les siècles qui précédèrent la Révolution" (Le Socialisme intégral, 2 vols. [Paris: Alcan, 1890 and 1891; 2d éd., 1893 and 1894], 1:116). 6. Malon to André Léo, 22 July 1868, Collection Lucien Descaves, In-

146

Notes to Pages 8 - 1 0

ternational Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, pf. 32 (hereafter cited as Collection Descaves). 7. "Fragment de mémoires" (June 1907), 5 0 2 - 7 . 8. There is a report from London in Malon's file at the Paris Prefecture of Police dated 1875 that states that it was when he was sixteen years old (Arch. PPo., BA/1170); others have Malon older at the time. 9. The workers demanded a raise from 35 centimes an hour to 4 0 centimes an hour. Malon stated in 1891 that he had taken on the direction of this

strike (Le Socialisme intégral 2:30n).

10. "Projet de statuts" for the "société civile d'épargne, de crédit mutuel et de solidarité des ouvriers de Puteaux, Suresnes, et pays environnants." There is a copy of this pamphlet in the Collection Descaves, pf. 32. This appeal was also printed in the paper La Coopération (9 September 1866); cited in Jean Gau-

mont, Histoire générale de la coopération

en France (Paris: Fédération Natio-

nale des Coopératives de Consommation, 1924), 1:527. 11. The copy of the statutes published in October 1866 noted the date the society began to function (ART. 24). As early as January and February 1867, there were discussions of opening a cooperative store. See the documents in the Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 12. This quote is from the "statuts et livret de cotisations" printed in October 1866. See Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 13. See the discussion by Gaumont, Histoire générale, 5 2 8 - 3 2 . 14. Cited in Simon, Une Belle Figure, 30. In the appeal of September 1868, strikes were explicitly rejected: " L a grève, c'est la guerre, et l'avenir n'est pas dans la guerre" (Simon, 30).

15. Simon, Une Belle Figure, 30.

16. One government-sponsored study before World War I estimated that shopping in cooperatives—which in Puteaux 3 , 0 0 0 households out of 8 , 0 0 0 were doing by 1913—saved the consumer 25 percent or more. See Lenard R.

Berlanstein, The Working People of Paris, 1871—1914 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 4 8 .

17. Le Socialisme intégral, 2:30n.

18. Jean Allemane, to offer just one example, always remained an advocate of a nonauthoritarian form of association that gave power within the workshop not to patrons, but to workers. See Siân Reynolds, "Allemane avant l'allemanisme: Jeunesse d'un militant ( 1 8 4 3 - 1 8 8 0 ) , " Le Mouvement social (January—March 1984): 3 - 2 8 . 19. "Les Collectivistes français," La Revue socialiste 5 (1887): 2 2 3 .

20. Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

21. It was common also among radical students. See John Bartier, "Etudiants et mouvement révolutionnaire au temps de la Première Internationale," (Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles, in Mélanges offerts à G. Jacquemyns 1968), 35—60. For a consideration of the difficulties of assessing the relationship between Proudhonian theory and workers' consciousness during the Second Empire, see Maria Fitzpatrick, "Proudhon and the French Labour Movement: The Problem of Proudhon's Prominence," European History Quarterly

Notes to Pages 11-13

147

15 (1985): 407-30. Even Paul Lafargue, who in the 1880s and 1890s would be the most prominent theoretician of French Marxism, was influenced by Proudhon and opposed strikes in 1866. See Lafargue's "La Grève et ses résultants," La Rive gauche, 13 May 1886; discussed by Cohn, "Paul Lafargue," 6 4 - 6 7 . 22. Die Reaktion in Deutschland (1842); cited in Aileen Kelly, Mikhail Bakunitt: A Study in the Psychology and Politics of Utopianism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 94. 23. See H. Carr, Michael Bakunin (New York: Random House, 1937). For an excellent discussion of the general context, see Martin E. Malia, Alexander Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961); for an analysis of the contradictions between the authoritarian and libertarian elements in Bakunin's thought, see Kelly, Mikhail Bakunin; and for a trenchant analysis of Bakunin's revolutionary "plan," see Eugene Pyziur, The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin (Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 1955). 24. The meeting probably occurred in late 1868. Albert Richard wrote that toward the end of 1868 Malon traveled to Switzerland, where he met Swiss socialists and, through Elisée Reclus, Bakunin ("Les Propagateurs de l'Internationale en France," La Revue socialiste 23 [1896]: 645). 25. James Guillaume, L'Internationale: Documents et souvenirs (1864— 1878) (Paris: Société Nouvelle de Librairie et d'Edition, 1905), l:77n. (Guillaume's L'Internationale was published in four volumes; volumes 1 and 2 were published in Paris in 1905 and 1907, respectively, by Société Nouvelle de Librairie et d'Edition; volumes 3 and 4 in Paris in 1909 and 1910 by Stock.) For a more general discussion of Bakunin's organizations during these years, see 1 : 71-133. The Alliance de la démocratie sociale was later called the Alliance des révolutionnaires socialistes and was sometimes referred to as the Fraternité internationale. G. D. H. Cole believes that "outside Italy, there was no real Bakuninist organization until Bakunin and a group of supporters—mainly exiles—seceded in 1868 from the League of Peace and Freedom and announced the formation of the Alliance of Social Democracy at Geneva" (Socialist Thought: Marxism and Anarchism, 1850-1890, vol. 2: A History of Socialist Thought [London: Macmillan, 1954], 121). 26. Guillaume suggests that the secret organization was dissolved in early 1869, thereby cutting relations between Bakunin and French socialists like Malon (L'Internationale, 1:131). Richard Hostetter also claims that Malon belonged to Bakunin's secret International Fraternity (The Italian Socialist Movement, vol. 1: Origins (1860-1882) [Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958], 122). And Bernard Moss has written that Bakunin's Social Democratic Alliance led Malon (among others) to abandon cooperation for revolutionary collectivism in 1869 [The Origins of the French Labor Movement: The Socialism of Skilled Workers, 1830-1914 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976], 75). I have found no evidence to support these claims. 27. A copy of this letter (written from Locarno and dated 3 May 1870) was made by Guillaume and sent to Lucien Descaves (see Collection Descaves, pf. 32; the letter is discussed by Guillaume in L'Internationale, l:131n). In the

148

Notes to Pages 13-14

letter Bakunin refers to "la trahison de Malon" and goes on to state that "Malon était un caractère un peu trop impressionnable et faible. Mes invectives contre lui ne sont jamais allés au de là. Tu sais que je n'ai jamais mis en doute ni son talent, ni la pureté ni l'ardeur de son dévouement." 28. Malon and Gustave Lefrançais to Laurent Verrycken, Geneva, 25 or 26 December 1871, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 29. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 17 September 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 30. Ibid. In another letter Malon also spoke kindly of Bakunin. See Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 29 August 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32: "Bakounine . . . au fond est un coeur très chaud et très aimant. En ce qui me touche je regrette d'avoir écrit dans un moment de colère un fort mauvaise lettre." 31. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 17 September 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 32. Malon to Albert Richard, Paris, 28 May 1869; cited in Richard, "Les Propagateurs de l'Internationale," 656; this letter is also reproduced in full in Julien Archer, "Dieci lettere di Benoît Malon ad Albert Richard," Movimento operaio e socialista 20 (1974): 182-84, although the text published by Archer is slightly different. The original runs as follows in Richard, 656: J'ai toujours vénéré l'homme [Bakunin], le vieux lutteur, l'indomptable révolutionnaire. Je n'ai attaqué que l'organisateur qui, ne se rendant pas compte de la diversité des moyens que rend nécessaire la difference des époques, des traditions, des forces, du milieu, du degré de civilisation des différents peuples, voudrait engager les jeunes révolutionnaires dans une voie unique avec un programme absolu et uniforme. J'ai regretté qu'avec sa grande science et sa vaste expérience des hommes et des choses, il n'ait pas vu, non plus que ne le voient Mazzini et Blanqui, qu'à la génération, qu'illuminent les grandes découvertes du milieu du dix-neuvième siècle et qu'ont déjà mûrie des défaites nombreuses, il faut d'autres horizons, d'autres moyens d'action qu'à la génération métaphysicienne et sceptique de 1830.

33. Malon to Albert Richard, no date (but Richard dates it after August 1869); cited in Richard, "Les Propagateurs de l'Internationale," 664; and reproduced in Archer, "Dieci lettere di Benoît Malon," 187. 34. Malon to Albert Richard, Paris, 17 April [1869]; cited in Archer, "Dieci lettere di Benoît Malon," 181. 35. Ibid., 180. 36. The office was located at 44, rue des Gravilliers. 37. Zéphrin Camélinat says that he took Malon his membership card for the International during the winter of 1865. See his remarks at Malon's funeral, printed in "La Mort de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 18 (1893): 404. 38. La Première Internationale, Recueil de documents publié sous la direction de Jacques Freymond (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1962), 1:85-107. (La Première Internationale was published in four volumes; volumes 1 and 2 in Geneva in 1962 by Librairie Droz, and volumes 3 and 4 in Geneva in 1971 by Institut Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationales.) Malon was not a delegate to the Second Congress of the International in Lausanne, 2—7 September 1867.

Notes to Pages 15-18

149

39. Manuscript, Collection Jung, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, 32. It is signed by Malon and seven other French delegates to the conference. 40. Malon's stance is clearly articulated in his letters to André Léo of 16 and 22 July 1868, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. In his letters to Albert Richard in 1869, Malon defended the ligue des femmes as being composed of "les plus énergiques communistes, hommes et femmes, qui l'ont déjà révolutionnés." And he encouraged Richard to attend the meeting of the International in Basel (1869) to defend women's rights against the "Proudhonians." See Malon to Albert Richard, Paris, 17 April [1869], and Malon to Albert Richard, Roubaix and Paris, Wednesday evening [August 1869]; cited in Archer, "Died lettere di Benoît Malon," 181-82, 187-88. 41. On the danger of using inappropriate ideological labels to refer to the militants of this period, see Jacques Rougerie, "La Première Internationale à Lyon (1865-1870): Problèmes d'histoire du mouvement ouvrier français," Annali: Anno Quarto 1961 (Milan: Feltrinelli Editore, 1962), 126-93; Procès des Communards (Paris: Julliard, 1964); "Sur l'histoire de la Première Internationale," Le Mouvement social (April-June 1965): 2 3 - 4 5 . 42. The Paris bureau had moved its seat to 19, rue Chapon. 43. Malon claimed in 1887 that these were the first of his words to be published. See his article "Les Collectivistes français," 227—30. For a more extended discussion of the prosecution and defense of the members of the International in 1868, see Jean Bruhat, Eugène Varlin: Militant ouvrier, révolutionnaire et Communard (n.p.: Editeurs Français Réunis, 1975), 103—23. 44. Malon to André Léo, 22 July 1868, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. There are five surviving letters from Malon to Léo in the Collection Descaves that date from these months in prison in 1868. The relationship between Malon and Léo is considered in chapter 2, 41—45. 45. Malon to André Léo, 16 July 1868, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 46. Malon to André Léo, 20 August 1868, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 47. Malon to André Léo, 22 July 1868, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 48. See Michelle Perrot, Les Ouvriers en grève: France, 1871—1890 (Paris: Mouton, 1974), 1:48-80, esp. the table on 51. Also see Fernand L'Huillier, La Lutte ouvrière à la fin du Second Empire (Paris: Colin, 1957). 49. This protest is dated 17 September 1868 and is cited in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 1:67—68. One glimpses here the roots of Malon's later opposition to the London General Council during the early 1870s. This is considered in chapter 2, 45-52. 50. In Malon to André Léo, Sainte-Pélagie, 29 September 1868, Collection Descaves, pf. 32, Malon states that he looks forward to seeing her on 31 September. 51. Richard, "Les Propagateurs de l'Internationale," 660. 52. Respectively, Beregi, La Vie et l'oeuvre de Benoit Malon, 4; and Simon, Une Belle Figure, 32. 53. He created a section of the International at Puteaux and traveled to Lille, Roubaix, Tourcoing, Fourchambault, Amboise, Wattrelos, Pontoise,

150

Notes to Pages 18-20

Saint-Ouen-1'Aumône, and Saint-Etienne to strengthen those already in place. See Archer, "Died lettere di Benoît Malon," 177-98. Jean-Baptiste Dumay remembered Malon as founding the section of the International at Le Creusot in April 1870, but others have claimed that Varlin already had created the section in March. See Dumay's Mémoires d'un militant ouvrier du Creusot (1841-1905) (Paris: Maspero, 1976), 129, 135, 147, and 348 n. 15. 54. See Malon to Albert Richard, 28 May 1869; cited in Richard, "Les Propagateurs de l'Internationale," 656; also in Archer, "Died lettere di Benoît Malon," 184. Malon wrote: "La souscription pour les Belges que j'ai organisée a consommé mon ostradsme industriel et je suis forcé de quitter momentanément Paris." Also see Malon to Albert Richard, Roubaix and Paris, Wednesday evening [August 1869], in Archer, 187, where Malon complains: "Les patrons et la police m'ont forcé de partir [de Roubaix], les uns en me refusant l'ouvrage, les autres en m'accablant de tracasseries. J'ai du partir." 55. La Question sociale: Histoire critique de l'économie politique (Lugano: Favre, 1876), 115n. There is a reference to this accident in Malon to Albert Richard, no date (probably late June or early July 1869); cited in Archer, "Died lettere di Benoît Malon," 185. 56. Malon's articles appeared in a variety of French journals, including Mutualité, Le Courrier français, L'Internationale, and La Marseillaise, as well as in foreign papers like L'Egalité (published in Geneva) and Le Progrès (published in Lode). 57. The first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary dates from 1880 ('Oxford English Dictionary, 1971 compact ed., s.v. "collectivism"). The first French usage was earlier, occurring with the Belgian economist Hippolyte Colins, often considered the inventor of collectivism for his 1835 proposal for the collective appropriation of the soil. 58. See Trésor de la langue française (Paris: CNRS, 1977), 5: 1039-40; and Jean Dubois, Le Vocabulaire politique et social en France de 1869 à 1872 (Paris: Larousse, 1962), 132-33. 59. One way Malon articulated this distinction was to contrast Proudhon's aphorism "À chacun le produit intégral de son travail" with the preferable communist aphorism "De chacun selon ses facultés à chacun selon ses besoins." See Malon to Albert Richard, Paris, le 25 Vendémiaire 78 [16 October 1869], and Paris, Sunday [November 1869]; cited in Archer, "Died lettere di Benoît Malon," 191-94. 60. See Jules-L. Puech, Le Proudhonisme dans l'Association internationale des travailleurs (Paris: Alcan, 1907); Stafford, From Anarchism to Reformism, 1-22; Julian Archer, "The Cooperative Ideal in the Socialist Thought of the First International in France," Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History, 1979, 252-60. James Guillaume mentions that this also was a common combination in Belgium and Switzerland during the late 1860s. (L'Internationale, 1: 86-87). 61. Hippolyte Colins (1783-1859) published several books that advocated land nationalization to end both intellectual and material poverty. He had a number of followers. See Ivo Rens and William Ossipow, Histoire d'un autre socialisme: L'Ecole colinsienne, 1840—1940 (Paris: Larousse, 1962).

Notes to Pages 2 0 - 2 1

151

62. The declaration of the 1868 Brussels Congress of the International makes this clear: Considérant que dès lors le travail agricole et la propriété du sol doivent être traités sur la même pied que le travail minier et la propriété du sous-sol; Considérant que, du reste, le fond productif du sol est la matière première de tous les produits, la source primitive de toutes les richesses, sans être lui-même produit du travail d'aucun particulier. . . . Le Congrès pense que l'évolution économique fera de l'entrée du sol arable à la propriété collective une nécessité sociale, et que le sol sera concédé aux compagnies agricoles comme les mines aux compagnies minières, les chemins de fer aux compagnies ouvrières, et ce avec des conditions de garanties pour la société et pour les cultivateurs, analogues à celles nécessaires pour les mines et les chemins de fer. (La Première Internationale, 1:405-6)

63. This ideal was similar to that advocated by the Belgian socialist César De Paepe, a prominent advocate of collectivism during these years who also saw the role of the state as limited at this time. In later years, De Paepe would increasingly see the necessity of an active state, and by the mid-1870s he was advocating a public service theory that looked to both communes and the state for the administration of public services. He and the anarchists parted ways over this issue. 64. For the characterization of the period see Jacques Droz, Le Socialisme démocratique: 1864-1960 (Paris: Colin, 1966), 21. 65. See Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:74, for a particularly clear delineation of the distinctions Guillaume made between communism and collectivism. 66. In a letter to Engels dated 2 October 1871, Lafargue wrote: "Ici j'ai rencontré plusieurs hommes qui venaient de Suisse et qui étaient affiliés à l'Alliance, et qui étaient persuadés que c'était Bakounine qui avait introduit le communisme dans l'Internationale sous le nom de collectivisme" (cited in Dubois, Le Vocabulaire politique et social, 260). 67. Exposé des écoles, 242-46. 68. See the letters of Malon to Albert Richard during 1869 in Archer, "Died lettere di Benoît Malon," 180, 190-95. 69. Malon to Albert Richard, Paris, 17 April [1869]; cited in Richard, "Les Propagateurs de l'Internationale," 655—56; and Archer, "Died lettere di Benoît Malon," 181. 70. See the discussion in E. Jeloubovskaia, La Chute du Second Empire et la naissance de la Troisième République en France, trans. J. Champenois (Moscow: Editions en Langues Etrangères, 1959), 185-214. 71. Malon to Albert Richard, Paris, 26 January 1870; dted in Richard, "Les Propagateurs de l'International," 659; and Archer, "Dieci lettere di Benoît Malon," 197. 72. On 13 June troops fired on a crowd in Saint-Etienne, killing thirteen and wounding nine; on 20 October soldiers attacked striking miners in the Aveyron, killing fourteen and wounding twenty. 73. Printed in La Marseillaise, 1 January 1870, and signed by Malon, Varlin, Combault, and Moulin. 74. Jean-Baptiste Dumay, a militant in Le Creusot, reported that Malon was sent by Rochefort's paper La Marseillaise. See Dumay, Mémoires, 129—30,

152

Notes to Pages 2 1 - 2 3

135. More generally, see Pierre Ponsot, Les Grèves de 1870 et la Commune de 1871 au Creusot (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1957). 75. The Paris sections of the International published a manifesto in La Marseillaise, 27 January 1870, proclaiming their solidarity with the striking workers at Le Creusot, and protesting the acts of violence against workers committed by the bourgeoisie and the Bonapartist government. Malon was one of the signatories. Looking back at the period 1864-70 in 1880, Malon wrote the following: Les internationalistes, tandis que ceux-ci n'apparaissaient qu'après la grève déclarée pour donner leur conseils; prendre l'initiative de souscriptions (qui souvent déterminèrent le succès) et fonder des sociétés ouvrières qui venaient s'ajouter au faisceau ouvrier international. ("Les Partis ouvriers en France," La Revue socialiste, no. 5 [3 May 1880]: 261) 76. Cited in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 1:276. 77. "La Politique de prolétariat," La Marseillaise, April 1870. 78. Malon to André Léo, Tuesday noon [1870], Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 79. L'Internationale, 24 April 1870. 80. Le Siècle, 11 June 1870. 81. Malon to Amédée Combault, Le Creusot, no date; cited in L'Huillier, La Lutte ouvrière, 53. 82. Varlin to Albert Richard, Paris, 20 November 1869; cited in Richard, "Les Propagateurs de l'Internationale," 658. 83. See the discussion in Jeloubovskaia, La Chute du Second Empire, 274-95. 84. The fine was 100 francs each. 85. He was confined to cell number 68. See the two letters from Malon to André Léo, one headed "vendredi," both without date, but clearly dating from 1870, in Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 86. "La Grève des mineurs" (Paris: La Commission de Propagande des Travailleurs Parisiens, 1870). 87. The manifesto is dated 11 July 1870. There is an English translation of the manifesto in Eugene Schulkind, ed., The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the Left (New York: Grove Press, 1974), 6 5 - 6 6 . 88. Malon to André Léo, 21 [August 1870], Collection Descaves, pf. 32. This was a common reaction of members of Malon's generation. Jules Guesde, for example, at first opposed the war but became committed to the defense of the Republic after September 1870. See Jules Guesde, Textes choisis, ed. Claude Willard (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1959), 4 7 - 5 4 . Even Elisée Reclus, the later anarchist, argued during 1870—71 that the Republic needed to be defended against the attack of an authoritarian power. See Marie Fleming, The Anarchist Way to Socialism: Elisée Reclus and Nineteenth-Century European Anarchism (London: Croom Helm, 1979), 84ff. 89. See Malon's article in La Marseillaise, 7 - 9 September 1870; cited in Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune, 1871 (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971), 46.

Notes to Pages 2 3 - 2 7

153

90. On his transfer see Arch. PPo., BA/1170. 91. See Jacques Rougerie, "L'A.I.T. et le mouvement ouvrier à Paris pendant les événements de 1870-1871," International Review of Social History 17 (1972): 3 - 1 0 2 ; see esp. 7-14 for a discussion of the strength of the International in 1870. Malon estimated that there were about 10,000 communists in Paris and an equal number of followers. See Malon to Albert Richard, Paris, 17 April [1869]; cited in Archer, "Dieci lettere di Benoît Malon," 180. 92. In addition to the seminal works by Rougerie, see Robert Wolfe, "The Parisian Club de la Révolution of the 18th Arrondissement, 1870-1871," Past and Present, no. 39 (1968): 81-119. 93. See, for example, the first public proclamation of the Central Republican Committee for National Defense of the Twenty Paris Arrondissements (15 September 1870) in Jean Dautry and Lucien Scheler, Le Comité central républicain des vingt arrondissements de Paris (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1960), 32— 35. There is an English translation in Stewart Edwards, éd., The Communards of Paris, 1871 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1973), 4 4 - 4 6 . 94. Malon remembered the Central Committee as being a federation of internationalists, Blanquists, and independent revolutionary socialists ("Les Collectivistes français," 234n). 95. See, for example, the appeal of 5 October 1870 to the Paris population and the affiche rouge of 6 January 1871, both from the Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements in Dautry and Scheler, Le Comité central, 8 3 - 8 5 , 145—48; there are English translations in Edwards, Communards of Paris, 47-49. 96. This discussion draws from Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 32-35. 97. The term "the new politics" is Rougerie's ("L'A.I.T.," 32-35). 98. See Rougerie's discussion in "L'A.I.T.," 3 3 - 3 5 . 99. Malon received 1,736 of 6,298 votes in the first round; 1,787 of 4,487 votes in the second (39 percent). The International gained only 9 seats out of 80. See Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 31-32. 100. Enquête parlementaire, 344; cited in Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 36. 101. The 17th arrondissement La Marmite was established at 20, rue Berzélius. The first cooperative La Marmite had been created by Varlin at 8, rue Larrey in 1868. See Edwards's discussion of the workshop in Paris Commune, 86-87. 102. Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 41. 103. Arch. PPo., BA/439; cited in Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 35. 104. Elisée Reclus, Elie Reclus, and Mme. André Léo were among the other persons who signed the program put forward in the first issue. The program of La République des travailleurs, published in the first number (8 January 1871) is reproduced in Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 82—84; it is also discussed by Fleming, Anarchist Way to Socialism, 88—91. 105. During 1869, Malon mentioned that he was receiving instruction to overcome his stutter. But he still feared public speaking, especially improvisation. See Malon to Albeit Richard, [n.p.], 28 March [1869], and Paris, 17 April [1869]; cited in Archer, "Dieci lettere di Benoît Malon," 179-80.

154

Notes to Pages 27-31

106. Edmond Lepelletier, Histoire de la Commune de 1871 (Paris: Mercure de France, 1912), 2:88-89. 107. See Jacques Rougerie, "Quelque documents nouveaux pour l'histoire du Comité central républicain des vingt arrondissements," Le Mouvement social (October-December 1961): 3 - 2 9 . 108. Maurice Foulon writes that "trois cents Internationaux, conduits par [Varlin] et Malon, la bannière de l'Internationale deployée avec la belle devise: Pas de droits sans devoirs, pas de devoirs sans droits, défilèrent stoiques et silencieux sous les fenêtres de l'Hôtel de Ville" (Eugène Varlin, relieur et membre de la Commune [Clermont-Ferrand: Editions Mont-Louis, 1934], 47; cited in Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 41n). Guillaume writes that Malon "directed" the movement of January 22 (L'Internationale, 2:128). I have found nothing to confirm such a dominant role. 109. See the discussion by Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 41-44; and also William Serman, La Commune de Paris (Paris: Fayard, 1986), 173-77. 110. For example, on 15 February, Arago, the interim minister of the interior, announced that after 25 February the daily indemnity for the members of the National Guard (1.5 francs) would be continued only for those who could prove that they were without other resources. This was at a time when Paris was still in shambles economically. 111. Dautry and Scheler, Le Comité central, 196—98; English translation in Edwards, Communards of Paris, 53-54. 112. The vote was 546 in favor, 107 against. 113. The letter is reproduced in Elie Peyron, "Le Monument de Benoît Malon," Mémoires de l'Académie de Nîmes, 1913; this quote is on p. 47. Malon's letter is dated 3 March. He therefore resigned before the measures voted on 10 March against the Parisians (refusal to extend the moratoria on rents, suppression of the indemnity paid members of the National Guard, and so on). Malon publicly announced his resignation on 18 March, by which time he was already back in Paris. The last session of the Assembly before moving to Versailles was 11 March. 114. The phrase "révolution incertaine" is from Jacques Rougerie, Paris libre 1871 (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1971), 112ff. 115. See Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 45-53. 116. Serman, La Commune de Paris, 183-91. 117. Varlin's remarks and Malon's response are cited in Serman, La Commune de Paris, 230-31. 118. See Edwards, Paris Commune, 223-24, for a discussion of the divisions that emerged among republicans over the actions of the National Guard in the 17th arrondissement after 18 March. 119. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 17 September 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. Malon defended his actions in a public letter dated 12 June 1872, published in the Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, no. 8 (15 June 1872): 2-3. 120. See the manifesto of the Paris branch of the First International supporting the principle of elections for the Commune, 23 March 1871, which is

Notes to Pages 32—34

155

reproduced in Murailles politiques françaises (Paris: Arnaud & Labat, 1875), 2:52-53; English translations in Edwards, Communards of Paris, 71-73; and Schulkind, Paris Commune, 111-13. 121. Malon received 4,199 votes of 11,394. The tally of twenty-three is Malon's figure: seventeen elected on 26 March, six more elected in the complementary elections of 16 April. See Malon's La Troisième Défaite du prolétariat français (Neuchâtel: Guillaume, 1871), 134-35, 158. Rougerie believes that the figure should be much higher; see "L'A.I.T.," 58-61. 122. This document (adopted 19 April, 1871) is reproduced in Malon's La Troisième Défaite, 180-84, and in his Histoire du socialisme, 2:696-701. There is an English translation in Edwards, Communards of Paris, 81-83. 123. Malon specifically cited this paragraph of the Declaration to the French People in "Les Collectivistes français," 235. 124. See, for example, the excerpt from the article by Buffier cited in Serman, La Commune de Paris, 297-99. 125. "Les Collectivistes français," 232. 126. This declaration "au travailleur des campagnes" from "les travailleurs de Paris" is reproduced by Malon in La Troisième Défaite, 169-73, and in his Histoire du socialisme, 2:693-96. 127. For an excellent discussion of the Commission du travail et de l'échange and of the proposals of workers and socialists during the Commune, see Rougerie, "L'A.I.T.," 72-77, and Paris libre 1871, 173-90, 234-47. 128. Malon justified the intervention of the Commune with regard to night work in bakeries as follows: "We are told that we should not be concerned with these social matters: I must say that up to now the State has intervened often enough against the workers; the least it can do now is to intervene in their favor" (comment made during the debate on bakers' night work, 28 April 1871; translated in Edwards, Communards of Paris, 139). 129. Apparently, only two major industrial cooperatives were set up with the encouragement of the Commune. For a discussion of one of these, the Société des fondeurs en fer, see Robert Tombs, "Harbingers or Entrepreneurs? A Workers' Cooperative During the Paris Commune," The Historical Journal 27 (1984): 969-77. 130. The quotation is from a proposal made by Pierre Vésinier on 4 May 1871. See Edwards, Paris Commune, 260; Serman, La Commune de Paris, 363-65. 131. See the discussion in Serman, La Commune de Paris, 361-62. 132. La Troisième Défaite, esp. 284—345. The division was not simply Jacobins versus socialists, as Vaillant, Frankel, and other members of the International voted for the Committee of Public Safety. But federalist socialists like Malon were clearly opposed to resurrecting Jacobin souvenirs from the past. See the discussions by Jacques Rougerie, "La Commune de 1871: Problèmes d'histoire sociale," Archives internationales de sociologie de la coopération et du développement 8 (July—December 1960): 45—68; Serman, La Commune de Paris, 332-47; and Charles Rihs, La Commune de Paris, sa structure et ses doctrines (Geneva: Droz, 1955).

156

Notes to Pages 3 4 - 3 9

133. Journal officiel de la République Française, 4 - 5 May 1871; English translation in Edwards, Communards of Paris, 92. In addition to Malon, the following persons signed this declaration: Andrieu, Langevin, Ostyn, Auguste Vermoral, Victor Clément, Albert Theisz, Auguste Serraillier, Auguste Avrial, Gustave Lefrançais, Gustave Courbet, E. Gerardin, Clémence, Arnould, Charles Besiay, Jules Vallès, and François Jourde. 134. Cited in Edwards, Paris Commune, 241. 135. Reprinted in Malon's La Troisième Défaite, 3 1 6 ; there is an English translation in Edwards, Communards of Paris, 9 3 - 9 4 . In addition to Malon, this declaration was signed by the following: Andrieu, Arnold, Avrial, Besiay, Clémence, V. Clement, Courbet, Frankel, E. Gerardin, Jourde, Lefrançais, Longuet, Ostyn, Pindy, Serraillier, Theisz, Tridon, Vallès, Varlin, and Vermorel. 136. See E. Gerardin to Malon, Paris, 16 May 1871, Collection Descaves, pf. 32, in which Gerardin implores Malon not to split the Commune over the issue of support of the Comité de salut public. 137. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 17 September 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 138. Arch. PPo., BA/1170. 139. Guillaume recalls this first meeting with Malon in his L'Internationale, 2:169-71. 140. This description of the repression of the Commune is from Malon's Le Nouveau Parti, 2d ed. (Paris: Derveaux, 1882), 1:11. 141. La Troisième Défaite, 4 9 5 - 9 9 , where Malon cites a correspondent with the Belgian paper Echo du Parlement. 142. La Troisième Défaite, 1 4 8 - 4 9 . 143. Ibid., 2 3 2 - 5 9 and 486. 144. Ibid., 2 8 4 - 8 5 . 145. Histoire du socialisme, 2:701. 146. La Troisième Défaite, 510. This Manichean view of class opposition is common in Malon's writings after the Commune. In 1872, for example, he wrote the following: lis [les socialistes] sont certes assez sûrs de la grandeur de leur cause pour rendre justice à leurs ennemis; ils savent par conséquent que la bourgeoisie française a eu ses jours glorieux: elle a brisé le joug clérical et féodal; mais, devenue à son tour détentrice de nouveaux privilèges aussi odieux que ceux qu'elle avait détruits, elle s'est arrêtée devant le complément de son oeuvre; et maintenant elle s'oppose de toutes ses forces, à l'irrésistible courant égalitaire qui entraîne les masses vers le socialisme; c'est pourquoi la direction du progrès lui échappe. (Exposé des écoles, 288) 147. See Le Nouveau

Parti, 1 : 1 - 8 , 2 8 - 3 2 , 111.

CHAPTER TWO 1. Victor Hugo, Les Misérables; cited by Malon, "Fragment de mémoires" (February 1907), 98. 2. This is the date and charge as given in his file in Arch. PPo., BA/1170. Others have given the date as 30 November 1872; see, for example, Maitron,

Notes to Pages 3 9 - 4 3

157

Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français, vol. 7: Deuxième parti, 1864-1871, 232. 3. See Marc Vuilleumier, "Les Proscrits de la Commune en Suisse (1871)," Revue suisse d'histoire 12 (1962): 501. Malon lived for a while in Geneva with Jean-Baptiste Dumay and his wife; see Dumay's Mémoires, 111. 4. There is an order in Malon's police file, dated 6 January 1872, to prevent the circulation of La Troisième Défaite du prolétariat française (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). 5. This was written from La Chaux-de-Fonds on 2 August 1871; cited in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:170-71. 6. There are references to his working as a basket maker and as a printer; see Dumay, Mémoires, 276. Apparently, Malon also was initiated into the Masonic lodge "Fedelta" in Palermo. He remained a Mason after his return from exile, belonging to the lodge "Lien des Peuples" in Paris. See "La Mort de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 18 (1893): 397-99. 7. Her given name was Léodile Béra, not Léonie Bréa, as some sources claim. Her date of birth is in dispute. A. Perrier, "Grégoire Champseix et André Léo," L'Actualité de l'histoire 30 (January-March 1960): 38-39, sets 1832 as her date of birth. Lucien Descaves has deduced that the correct date is 1824 (see Descaves' notes in Collection Descaves, pf. 32). I believe that 1826 is the correct date because in a letter Léo describes herself as fifteen years older than Malon, who was born in 1841 (Collection Descaves, pf. 44; letter without date in which she announces her separation from Malon). 8. André Léo, "Les Associations à Nantes," La Coopération, 5 May 1867. Also see André Léo's "Les Fêtes coopératives," La Coopération, 24 March 1867. 9. L'Egalité, 1 March 1869. 10. See the "appel aux démocrates," reproduced in André Léo: Une Journaliste de la Commune (Paris: Editions du Lerot, 1987), 12. There is no evidence that the journal obtained enough subscriptions to begin publication. 11. The statutes of the Société de la revendication des droits de la femme were published in Versailles in 1869; there is a copy in the Collection Descaves, pf. 31. 12. Refer to the discussion of this in chapter 1, 17-18. 13. There are five surviving letters located in the Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 14. Malon to André Léo, Sainte-Pélagie, 6 September 1868, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 15. Malon to André Léo, Puteaux, 16 June 1869, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 16. Malon to André Léo, no date (but certainly 1870), Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 17. Firmin Maillard suggested that André Léo was one of the directors (Histoire des journaux publiés à Paris pendant le siège et sous la Commune [Paris: Dentu, 1871]; cited in André Léo, 25). 18. André Léo, "Au travailleur des campagnes," La Commune, 10 April and 3 May 1871; cited in André Léo, 30—33.

158

Notes to Pages 4 3 - 4 6

19. André Léo, "Aventures de neuf ambulancières à la recherche d'un poste de dévouement," La Sociale, 6 May 1871. 20. André Léo, "La Révolution sans la femme," La Sociale, 8 May 1871. 21. See Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:169-71. 22. Malon quoted several extracts from this manuscript in La Troisième Défaite, 441, 450, 490. He refers to the manuscript entitled Les Défenseurs de l'ordre à Paris en mai 1871. Perhaps the unpublished manuscript to which Malon referred is the same one that is now in the Collection Descaves, pf. 31. 23. The discourse was published in Neuchâtel in 1871 as La Guerre sociale. See the discussion in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:218. 24. There were difficulties here as well. See Ph. Jourde to André Léo, 26 January 1877, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. Jourde, of Le Siècle, informed André Léo that it would be impossible to publish her book Ecolière de l'amour because of a negative assessment by the conseil de surveillance. 25. André Léo to Mathilde Roederer, 7 June 1873, Collection Descaves, pf. 32; André Léo to Elise [Grimm], 24 June 1873, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 26. Malon to César De Paepe, 13 April 1878, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908), 516. For the correspondence of De Paepe, consult Entre Marx et Bakounine: César De Paepe correspondance (Paris: Maspero, 1974). 27. André Léo, no date, Collection Descaves, pf. 44. Also see André Léo to Elise [Grimm], Lugano, 13 March 1878, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 28. See Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:299; 3:321-22. 29. The geographical split was, in fact, even more complex. There was, for example, an active section in Geneva of the Alliance de la démocratie socialiste, which was founded at the instigation of Bakunin and was therefore antiauthoritarian. For a detailed accounting of the split from the perspective of the antiauthoritarians, see Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:1—64. 30. Malon and Gustave Lefrançais to Laurent Verrycken, Geneva, 25 or 26 December 1871, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 31. Vuilleumier, "Les Proscrits de la Commune en Suisse (1871)," 525-27. 32. Guillaume to his wife, Neuchâtel, July 1871; there is a copy of this letter, apparently sent by Guillaume to Lucien Descaves, in Collection Descaves, pf. 32; it is also reproduced in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:170. 33. In the circular published by the London General Council after the split, Les Prétendues Scissions dans l'Internationale, it is stated that Malon was a member of the Section de propagande. Guillaume, however, states that Malon was not a member, though he participated in the deliberations. He cites an article by Jules Montels in the Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, nos. 10—11 (15 June 1872): Dans une des séances d'octobre dernier à laquelle assistait Malon, non comme membre de la Section, mais simplement à titre d'international,—il était encore membre de la Section du Temple-Unique [the central Geneva section of the International],— Malon combattit vivement la proposition que j'avais faite de rompre avec Londres, parce que, disais-je, la résolution de la Conférence touchant les Sections de propagande montre clairement qu'il y a parti pris de nous évincer. Malon, je le répète, non-seulement combattit ma proposition, mais proposa de renouveler une dernière

Notes to Pages 4 7 - 4 8

159

tentative de conciliation auprès de Londres. Sa proposition fut acceptée. (Guillaume,

L'Internationale, 2:223)

34. La Première Internationale, 2:251. 3 5 . The phrase "authoritarian organization" is used in the Sonvillier Circular to refer to the designs of the General Council. See La Première Interna-

tionale, 2:265.

3 6 . This is the recollection by Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:217. 3 7 . André Léo to Mathilde Roederer, 12 November 1 8 7 1 ; cited in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2:220-22. 3 8 . Guillaume recounts how he, Malon, Lefrançais, Joukovsky, and others decided to hike from Sonvillier to Chaux-de-Fonds on the evening following the conclusion of the conference. Caught in a snowstorm, they reached Chauxde-Fonds wet, tired, and hungry. With difficulty they found an inn, hung their clothes before the fire to dry, and spent much of the night, wrapped in blankets, in animated conversation about their adventures and their struggles with the London General Council. Included in Guillaume's account is an interesting vignette o f Jules Guesde in transition from radical journalist to committed socialist. See Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2 : 2 4 2 - 4 4 . This shared experience no doubt reinforced their resolve to fight against the authoritarian tendencies of M a r x and the General Council. 3 9 . See the discussion by Guillaume, L'Internationale, 2 : 2 4 7 - 4 8 . Dumay reports that Malon preached conciliation between the factions at the meeting of 2 December but was expelled anyway. See Dumay, Mémoires, 2 8 4 . Lefrançais and Malon wrote that they were forced from the central Geneva section and became "membres de la Fédération Jurassienne, à laquelle a adhéré la Section de propagande et d'action socialiste révolutionnaire, fondée par des réfugiés français et autres et dans laquelle on nous a reçus" (Malon and Gustave Lefrançais to Laurent Verrycken, Geneva, 2 5 or 2 6 December 1 8 7 1 , Collection Descaves, pf. 3 2 ) . 4 0 . The movements of Malon were carefully monitored by the Paris police. There is a report dated 3 April 1 8 7 2 that states that Malon had been obliged to leave Geneva and had been greeted in Neuchâtel by "Guillaume fils" (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). Guillaume states that one of the reasons Malon left Geneva was that he had a falling-out with the Perron family, who had given Malon 2:259). assistance upon his arrival there in 1871 (L'Internationale,

41. See the announcement in the Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, no.

8 (1 June 1 8 7 2 ) . Dumay recounts how a group of delegates (including Malon) who had attended this meeting in Locle made a trip to the Saut du Doubs that entailed crossing briefly into French territory and therefore risked arrest for the

proscrits (Mémoires, 279-83).

4 2 . Guillaume states that he left in mid-June 1 8 7 2 (L'Internationale, 2: 299). 4 3 . This article was subsequently published as a pamphlet entitled L'Internationale: Son histoire et ses principes (n.p.: Propagande Socialiste, 1 8 7 2 ) . All references are to this publication.

44. L'Internationale, 13—14.

160

Notes to Pages 4 9 - 5 2

45. Malon gave a more pointed public response to defend himself against rumors spread and accusations made by the General Council. See Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, nos. 10—11 (15 June 1872): 2—3. 46. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Neuchâtel, 3 May 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. There is also a long letter complaining of the machinations of Louis Chalain, who was circulating false rumors in the Marxist camp about Malon's actions during the Commune (Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 17 September 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32). See the discussion of Malon's confrontation with Chalain in chapter 1, 35. 47. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Neuchâtel, 24 May 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 48. G. M. Stekloff, a historian very sympathetic to the Marxist faction in this struggle, characterized the Geneva Congress as "a pitiful affair." He also quotes Marx. See his History of the First International (New York: Russell 8c Russell, 1968), 278-79. 49. See Guillaume, L'Internationale, 3:8. There is also a good discussion in George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1962), 244-57. 50. The accusations and defense of Malon are in La Première Internationale, 2:266-315. Guillaume discusses the Hague Congress at length in L'Internationale, 2:319-56. 51. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 29 August 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 52. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 22 July 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 53. Ibid. 54. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Chiasso, 29 August 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 55. Ibid. 56. Guillaume, L'Internationale, 3:8. 57. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, 13 February 1873, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. He goes on: "Ne comprenez pas . . . que ma lettre veuille dire abstention^] rien n'est si loin de ma pensée, seulement nous devons pour le moment nous contenter d'agir par petits groupes." 58. Exposé des écoles, i. 59. Ibid., 8, 31; 3 3 - 3 4 , 42n; 67n; 97; 183-90. 60. Ibid., 289. 61. Ibid., 265. 62. La Première Internationale, 1:10. 63. Malon and Léo were in Chiasso from June 1872 to October 1873, in Milan from October 1873 to August 1875, in Geneva from August 1875 to November 1875, then again in Milan from November 1875 to January 1876. 64. The exact reason for the expulsion from Milan is unclear. The minister of the interior ordered him arrested; he was, on 5 January 1876; and after spending three days in jail, he was escorted to the Swiss frontier. There is a press clipping from Petite presse, January 1876, in Malon's file at the Paris Prefecture of Police indicating that Malon was having problems with the authorities in

Notes to Pages 53—55

161

Milan and that he was close to the directors of the socialist paper La Plebe (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). Malon was in Lugano from January 1876 to October 1876. When he returned to Italy, he stayed briefly on the Tucsan coast in Viareggio before moving (in November 1876) to Palermo, Sicily. By 25 March 1877, Malon was writing César De Paepe from Sardinia (see "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 [1908]: 322—28.) He lived on Sardinia, at Cagliari and Nuoro, at least through July 1877. In another letter to De Paepe (Palermo, 26 January 1877), Malon mentioned that he planned to go to Tunis, but there is no evidence that he made the trip (see "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," 323). There is also a report in Malon's police file, dated 27—29 January 1877, that states that Malon, en route to Tunisia, had been arrested, imprisoned, and then expelled from Palermo (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). 65. Richard Hostetter suggests that during the 1870s and 1880s Malon "exercised a notably moderating influence on Italian socialism" (Italian Socialist Movement, 1:309). Also see Eva Civolani, "Il Pensiero politico di Benoît Malon all'epoca della sua collaborazione a 'La Plebe,' " Annali della Fondazione Luigi Einaudi 16 (Turin, 1982): 279—303. I would like to thank James Banker for his help with this article. More generally, see Leo Valiani, Questioni di storia del socialismo (Turin: Eiulio Einaudi Editori, 1958); Ernesto Ragioniere, Socialdemocrazia tedesca e socialisti italiani (1875—1895) (Milan: Feltrinelli Editore, 1961); Aldo Romano, Storia del movimento socialista in Italia, voi. 2: L'Egemonia Borghese e la rivolta libertaria 1871—1882 (Bari: Editori Laterza, 1966); Paul Guichonnet, "Le Socialisme italien des origines à 1914," in Histoire générale du socialisme, ed. Jacques Droz (Paris: PUF, 1974), 2: 237—77; and Eva Civolani, L'Anarchismo dopo la comune: I casi italiano e spagnolo (Milan: Franco Angeli Editore, 1981), esp. 199-229. 66. Cited in Hostetter, Italian Socialist Movement, 346; Cafiero wrote from Lugano, where he was staying after the failed insurrectionary attempts of August 1874. 67. See the entry for Andrea Costa in Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Rome: Enciclopedia Italiana, 1984), 30:128-44. 68. "Lettre adressée au meeting de Lausanne"; reproduced in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 4:10-14. The quotations in this and the following paragraphs come from this arride, unless otherwise indicated. 69. Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, no. 21 (1876), article signed P. R., discussed by Guillaume, L'Internationale, 4:14—15. 70. "Lettre adressée au meeting de Lausanne"; reproduced in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 4:13. 71. Italian Socialist Movement, 359ff. 72. Malon referred to his socialism as "experimental socialism" as early as March 1877. See Malon to César De Paepe, Cagliari, 25 March 1877, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 327. 73. In La Plebe, 13 March 1877; cited in Hostetter, Italian Socialist Movement, 375. 74. "Lettre adressée au meeting de Lausanne"; reproduced in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 4:12. 75. Cited in Hostetter, Italian Socialist Movement, 353.

162

Notes to Pages 5 6 - 5 8

76. Il Povero, 18 April 1877; cited in Hostetter, Italian Socialist Movement, 386. 77. Guillaume states that they ceased to write each other after the Hague Congress [L'Internationale, 2:299). 78. Guillaume, L'Internationale, 4:17. 79. Il Povero, 6 May 1877. See the discussion in Hostetter, Italian Socialist Movement, 385-93. Malon referred to the quarrel with Bakuninists in a letter to César De Paepe, no date (but clearly early 1877), "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 325-26. 80. There is a suspicious inconsistency in Guillaume's recollections. In November 1871, he has Malon laying out the principles of the International to a then-naive Guesde (L'Internationale, 2:242-44). Two years later (and less than sixty pages later), he tells us that "Malon commença à lire les économistes, qu'il ne comprit guère, et à se farcir la tête de notions confuses d'histoire, de sociologie et de philosophie" (2:299). The following passage written by Guillaume gives an indication of how bad relations became between Malon and Guillaume because of their disagreements: "En 1881 ou 1882, je rencontrai un jour Malon sur la place de l'Ecole de médecine [Paris]: il vint à moi la main tendue, je lui tournai le dos" (4:325). 81. Arch. PPo., BA/1170. 82. Costa had also by this time come to embrace legalitarian tactics. See Hostetter, Italian Socialist Movement, 415-17. 83. La Plebe, 3 August 1879; cited in Hostetter, Italian Socialist Movement, 417. 84. La Première Internationale, 2:236. 85. Malon to César De Paepe, no date (probably middle of 1878), "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 49 (1909): 71. 86. This is how Malon characterized the program to César De Paepe in a letter from Cagliari, dated 28 May 1877, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 439. 87. There is a note in Malon's police file, dated 27 November 1878, indicating that Malon had spent a dozen days in Paris; there is also a subsequent note, dated 5 December 1878, stating that the Paris police had been unable to verify this visit (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). Such reports indicate the anxiety with which the police continued to monitor the movements of communards like Malon. In July, Malon wrote that André Léo wished to give up her part in the direction of the journal. See Malon to César De Paepe, Lugano, 7 July 1878, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 49 (1909): 78. 88. See the numerous discussions of the journal in "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 317-28, 436-54, 501-16; 49 (1909): 64—68. Malon indicated to De Paepe that Guesde would work in France for the journal (501). 89. See the letters to César De Paepe in "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 436-54, 501-16; 49 (1909): 6 4 - 8 1 . 90. Malon to César De Paepe, Lugano, 31 January 1878, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 508.

Notes to Pages 5 8 - 6 3

163

91. Malon to César De Paepe, Lugano, 30 July 1878, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 49 (1909): 74-76. 92. In a letter to Eduard Bernstein, Malon complained that Lugano was "infected with police informers" (Malon to Eduard Bernstein, Lugano, 7 March 1879, Collection Bernstein, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, D440). 93. Malon to César De Paepe, 6 November 1879 and 2 December 1879, Fonds Fournière, Institut Français d'Histoire Social, Paris, côte 14 AS 181 (10). The two letters discuss the financial preparations for La Revue socialiste of 1880. Malon mentioned that he had obtained the financial backing of Karl Hoechberg. 94. The first issue is dated 20 January 1880; the final issue, 5 September 1880. 95. La Question sociale, iii-vi. 96. Ibid., 78; see also 67-78. 97. La Question sociale, 79-91. 98. Ibid., 93-95. 99. Ibid., 96. 100. I believe Eva Civolani overestimates the influence of Comte on Malon and exaggerates the degree to which Malon believed in the ineluctable triumph of socialism. See Civolani's "II Pensiero politico di Benoît Malon," 283-94. 101. Malon to César De Paepe, Lugano, 4 January 1878, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 509. 102. La Question sociale, 147; see also 105-47. 103. La Question sociale, 155-88. 104. Ibid., 250-51; see also 243-51. 105. La Question sociale, 251-67. 106. Ibid., 310-20. 107. All references are to Histoire du socialisme, 3 vols., new ed. (Paris: Derveaux, 1882, 1883, 1884). 108. Malon to Wilhelm Liebknecht, Cannes, 6 March 1891, Collection Liebknecht, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, pf. 244. 109. Histoire du socialisme, 1:15-16. 110. Ibid., 19-23. 111. See Malon's "Les Partis ouvriers," 267; also see 257-69. 112. In June 1878, Malon wrote to De Paepe that he had translated some pages of Lassalle about which he was very enthusiastic (Malon to César De Paepe, Lugano, 14 June 1878), "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 49 [1909]: 68). 113. Ferdinand Lassalle, Capital et travail (Paris: Librairie du Progrès, 1880). In 1887, Malon mentioned that Karl Hoechberg (d. 1885) had been responsible for having his translations of Lassalle and Schaeffle published ("Le Programme de 1880," La Revue socialiste 5 [1887]: 44-45n). 114. Cf. Peter Gay's suggestion that Lassalle's ethical orientation influenced Eduard Bernstein (The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism [New York: Columbia University Press, 1952], 89-94).

164

Notes to Pages 6 3 - 6 9

115. Histoire du socialisme, 3 : 9 9 3 - 9 4 . 116. Cole, Socialist Thought, 2 : 7 1 - 8 7 . 117. When Malon made the similar argument he followed Lassalle by using as a foil the same German leader of the Liberal Progressive Party, Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch, who had advocated voluntary credit and cooperative societies for workers (Le Socialisme intégral, 2:31-33). 118. Histoire du socialisme, 3:996. CHAPTER THREE 1. Guillaume, L'Internationale, 1:285. 2. See Aimée Moutet, "Le Mouvement ouvrier à Paris du lendemain de la Commune au premier congrès syndical en 1876," Le Mouvement social (January—March 1976): 3—39. Moutet's article corrects in important respects the conclusions of the earlier article by Maxwell R. Kelso, "The Inception of the Modern French Labor Movement (1871-79): A Reappraisal," Journal of Modern History 8 (1936): 1 7 3 - 9 3 . 3. Many so-called Radicals were, during the late nineteenth century, quite advanced in their social philosophy and close to the socialists on many issues. See Leo A. Loubère, "The French Left-Wing Radicals: Their Views on Trade Unionism, 1 8 7 0 - 1 8 9 8 , " International Review of Social History 1 (1962): 2 0 3 - 3 0 . Malon wrote about these congresses of the 1870s in his Histoire du socialisme, 2:702—10. See also Malon's articles "Les Conférences internationales ouvrières de Paris" and "Le Mouvement syndical de 1872 à 1878," La Revue socialiste 4 (1886): 8 2 7 - 3 8 , 8 6 5 - 8 6 . 4. Malon discussed the rise in popularity of Barberet in "Le Mouvement syndical," 8 7 0 - 7 1 . He was unhappy about the narrowness of Barberet's stance and claimed that he confined "le parti ouvrier dans les landes stériles de l'épargne et d'un coopératisme sans avenir." 5. In the words of the "préambule du rapport d'ensemble voté par la délégation ouvrière française à l'exposition de Vienne," the strike was a "forme primitive, le plus souvent condamnée par l'expérience," and should be "remplacée par l'organisation des Chambres syndicales" (cited in Histoire du socialisme, 2:704). 6. See Perrot, Les Ouvriers en grève, 1:51; Moutet, "Le Mouvement ouvrier," 3 1 - 3 9 . 7. See Yves Lequin, "Classe ouvrière et idéologie dans la region Lyonnaise à la fin du XIXe siècle (vers 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 1 4 ) , " Le Mouvement social (October—December 1969): 3—20. Though specifically looking at the Lyon region, Lequin's conclusion is probably appropriate for most regions of France: Trop peu offertes, mal exposées au gré des contacts personnels, trop confuses dans l'esprit même de ses tenants, les idéologies rencontrent une attention éphémère, ou plus souvent l'indifférence d'une classe ouvrière mal armée pour en comprendre la complexité, trop attentive au court terme de la conjoncture économique, perpétuellement et contradictoirement tiraillée entre le processus d'intégration sociale et politique et le rêve révolutionnaire. Plus que de guesdisme, d'anarchisme ou de blanquisme, on

Notes to Pages 70-71

165

a affaire à des guesdistes, des anarchistes, des blanquistes, dont l'adhésion ne se

nourrit qu'exceptionnellement de la doctine à laquelle ils prétendent se rattacher et passe plus par l'appartenance à un parti que par la netteté des convictions; sans oublier la part du hasard. (17-18)

8. Neil Mclnnes, for example, has argued that "les marxistes des années 80 mettaient en circulation . . . une manière de marxisme confus, incomplet et dénaturé" and that the development of Marxism in fact had to wait for the theoretical discussions of Labriola and Sorel in the 1890s ("Les Débuts du marxisme théorique en France et en Italie [1880-1897]," Cahiers de l'Institut de science économique appliquée, 102 ser. s, no. 3 [June I960]: 6; see also 5-51). Daniel Lindenberg favors Lucien Herr—"le Nestor du socialisme français, l'éducateur des grands réformistes"—and Georges Sorel—"le prophète isolé d'un marxisme prolétarien dégagé des impasses du positivisme" (Le Marxisme introuvable [Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1975], 7). Jolyon Howorth argues that Vaillant was a central figure: "Il ne fait aucun doute qu'avec Jaurès, Vaillant fut un des tout premiers Français à introduire le marxisme en France d'une façon sérieuse" (Edouard Vaillant, 93). Harvey Goldberg insists on the critical stance of Charles Rappoport toward the Marxism of Guesde et al. ("Charles Rappoport ou la crise du marxisme en France," L'Homme et la société, nos. 24-25 [1972]: 127-50). 9. Michelle Perrot, "Les Guesdistes: Controverse sur l'introduction du marxisme en France," Annales: Economies, sociétiés, civilisations, May—June 1967, 701-10. 10. Samuel Bernstein, The Beginnings of Marxian Socialism in France, rev. ed. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1965), 93. Alexandre Zévaès similarly argues that with the acceptance of the Minimum Program, pure Marxism is introduced into French socialism (De l'introduction du marxisme en France [Paris: Rivière, 1947], 102-9, 172). 11. Concerning the introduction of Marxism in the 1870s, see Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste; Maurice Dommanget, L'Introduction du marxisme en France (Lausanne: Editions Rencontre, 1969); Joy Hudson Hall, "Gabriel Deville and the Development of French Socialism (1871-1905)" (Ph.D. diss., Auburn University, 1983); Derfler, Paul Lafargue. For a perceptive analysis of the emergence of the categories Marxist and Marxism in Europe during the late nineteenth century, see Georges Haupt, "De Marx au marxisme," in his L'Historien et le mouvement social (Paris: Maspero, 1980), 77-107. 12. See Exposé des écoles, 236-37, for the reference to Marx. 13. Michael Kelly, "Hegel in France to 1940: A Bibliographical Essay," Journal of European Studies 11 (1981): 29-52. 14. Madeleine Rebérioux, "Le Socialisme français de 1871 à 1914," in Histoire générale du socialisme, ed. Droz, 2:142. On the general issue of the availability of Marx's works in France, see Dommanget, L'Introduction du marxisme, 61—90; and Thierry Paquot, Les Faiseurs de nuages (Paris: Le Sycomore, 1980), 71-75. 15. The sections of volume 1 of Capital that appeared were the translation of Jules Roy and were entirely reviewed and approved by Marx himself. This

166

Notes to Pages 71-74

portion was published by Maurice LaChatre and appeared between 1872 and 1875 in sections at 10 centimes each, in order to facilitate its purchase by workers. There is a thorough discussion of the difficulties of publishing a translation of Dos Kapital in Dommanget, L'Introduction du marxisme, 70-83. Earlier, in 1867, Lafargue had translated part of the preface of Das Kapital; it appeared in Le Courrier français. 16. On his encounters with Marx see Paul Lafargue, "Karl Marx, souvenirs personnels," Souvenirs sur Marx (Paris: Bureau d'Editions, 1936), 11 (originally published in Die Neue Zeit [1890-91]). 17. I was alerted to this by Leslie Derfler, who kindly allowed me to read portions of his book-length manuscript on Lafargue, now published as Paul Lafargue and the Founding of French Marxism, 1842-1882. 18. Members of this group came to support various factions on the Left: John Labusquière, Victor Marouck, and Calvinhac became Possibilists; Guesde, Deville, and Massard were Marxists; E. Gautier and Crie remained anarchists. See Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste, 12; Dommanget, L'Introduction du marxisme, 121-27; and Hall, "Gabriel Deville," 71-92. 19. See Michelle Perrot, "Le Premier Journal marxiste français: L'EGALITE de Jules Guesde (1877-1883)," L'Actualité de l'histoire 28 (July 1959): 1-26. 20. Cited in Bernstein, Beginnings of Marxian Socialism, 115. 21. L'Egalité, 18 November 1877; cited in Bernstein, Beginnings of Marxian Socialism, 117. 22. The new slogan on the masthead read "Organe collectiviste révolutionnaire." 23. As Willard points out, between 1882 and 1889 no book by Marx or by Engels appeared in France [Le Mouvement socialiste, 28). 24. Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste, 32. 25. See, for example, the series of articles entitled "Le Matérialisme économique de Marx" by Gustave Rouanet in La Revue socialiste 5 (1887): 395-422,579-603; 6 (1887): 7 6 - 8 7 , 2 7 8 - 9 4 , 5 0 7 - 3 1 . These are devoted to an analysis of Marx's economic materialism and its relationship to French socialism. Rouanet is very impressed with the powerful economic analysis presented by Marx, but he believes that the problems confronting socialists are more complex than presented by Marx. 26. Reported by Engels in a letter to Bernstein, 2 - 3 November 1882; cited in Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste, 30. 27. George Lichtheim, Marxism in Modern France (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 9. 28. Lindenberg, Le Marxisme introuvable, 55. 29. Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste, 31. 30. The characterization is Stafford's (From Anarchism to Reformism, 6). 31. This is the assumption, for example, of the analysis of Moss, Origins of the French Labor Movement. 32. F. Laden, for example, noted: "On entend par ce mot 'socialisme' l'ensemble des doctrines qui ont pour objet de rechercher les moyens d'aug-

Notes to Pages 74-76

167

menter la richesse générale et d'en opérer la plus équitable répartition" {Révolution-République et Socialisme [Paris: Lacroix Verboeckhoven, 1871], 273; cited in Dubois, Le Vocabulaire politique et social, 421). 33. See the discussion in chapter 1,19—20. 34. R. D. Anderson, France 1870-1914: Politics and Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977), 123. Such an assessmemt has been common. See, for example, Mermeix (alias Gabriel Terrail), La France socialiste: Notes d'histoire contemporaine (Paris: Fetscherin & Chuit, 1886), 98,108; Alexandre Zévaès, Jules Guesde (1845-1922) (Paris: Rivière, 1928), 47. 35. Even the conception of common ownership had a long history. See the discussion of collectivism in chapter 1, 19—20. 36. Cited in Rebérioux, "Le Socialisme français de 1871 à 1914," in Histoire générale du socialisme, ed. Droz, 2:148-49. 37. Jules Guesde, Collectivisme et révolution, new ed. (Paris: Bibliothèque Socialiste, 1890), 23n; see also 20n. This work was originally published in 1879. Lafargue went even farther, arguing that "le mouvement coopératif quoique faux et même contre-révolutionnaire a le bon côté de développer des capacités administratives, qui font si complètement défaut dans la classe ouvrière et de l'habituer à vouloir agir par lui-même. . . . L'appétit vient en mangeant, dit le proverbe" (Paul Lafargue to Jules Guesde, London, June 1879); cited in "Correspondance des militants du mouvement ouvrier français, 1879-1882," in Annuaire d'études française [Moscow, 1963], 451; see also 445—82). Also refer to the correspondence collected in Claude Willard, ed., La Naissance du Parti ouvrier français (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1981). 38. Cited in Léon Blum, "Les Congrès ouvriers et socialistes français," La Bibliothèque socialiste (1901), reprinted in L'Oeuvre de Léon Blum (18911905) (Paris: Albin Michel, 1954), 414. One of the best accounts is given by Malon himself. See his article "Le Congrès de Marseille," La Revue socialiste 4 (1886): 1065—88; this article includes extensive extracts from the most important resolutions passed at the Marseille Congress. 39. Guesde denounced private property in Le Radical, 9 March 1877. See Perrot, "Le Premier Journal marxiste français," 3. 40. "Le Collectivisme et la liberté," L'Egalité, 25 November 1877; cited in Perrot, "Le Premier Journal marxiste français," 19. See also Guesde's discussion in Collectivisme et révolution, 14-15. 41. See Guesde's article "La Propriété collective au Congres ouvrier socialiste de Marseille," La Revue socialiste, no. 1 (20 January 1880): 19-25. 42. Guesde, Collectivisme et révolution, 15. The same phrase is used in a letter from Guesde to Karl Marx (Paris, March-April 1879); cited in "Correspondance des militants," 448. 43. Leslie Derfler, "Reformism and Jules Guesde: 1891-1904," International Review of Social History 12 (1967): 66—80. Also see Carl Landauer, "The Guesdists and the Small Farmers," International Review of Social History 6 (1961): 212-25. 44. See J. Maitron, Le Mouvement anarchiste en France, vol. 1 : Des Origines à 1914 (Paris: Maspero, 1975), 15-17.

168

Notes to Pages 77-79

45. See Malon's article "Le Collectivisme en France de 1875 à 1879," La Revue socialiste 4 (1886): 990-1016. 46. This phrase comes from Landauer, "Origin of Socialist Reformism," 85. As Willard points out, Lafargue himself in 1880 questioned the appropriateness of the term (Le Mouvement socialiste, 17). 47. Cited in Malon, "Le Congrès de Marseille," 1069. 48. Eugène Fournière, La Crise socialiste (Paris: Bibliothèque-Charpentier, 1908), 41-42. 49. The Fédération des travailleurs socialistes was based, as the name implies, on a federative principle. There were six geographical regions, each of which formed a union fédérative that was to hold regional congresses and administer its own affairs: Paris (or the Center), Lyons (or the East), Marseille (or the South), Bordeaux (or the West), Lille (or the North), Algiers (or Algeria). The regional federations often differed with each other on strategy and organizational philosophy. In 1880 (at the time of their foundings), the Guesdists were strongest in the Center and East; anarchists were strongest in the South; the reformists were strongest in the West and the North. 50. In December 1877, Malon wrote that he and Guesde were "amis très intimes." See Malon to César De Paepe, 23 December 1877, "Correspondance de Benoît-Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 501. 51. See Paul Lafargue to Jules Guesde, London, 29 November 1879; cited in "Correspondance des militants," 455. Lafargue argues there for municipal socialism. Also see the series of articles entitled "Le Parti ouvrier et l'alimentation publique" that Lafargue published in Malon's La Revue socialiste, no. 2 (20 February 1880): 65-77; no. 4 (20 April 1880): 215-23; no. 6 (20 May 1880): 289-97. 52. Lafargue began to reverse his stance on municipal socialism in December 1881, with the appearance of the third series of L'Egalité. By mid-1882, he was denying altogether that the transformation of industries into public services could aid the revolution. Cohn argues that Lafargue modified his stance because municipal socialism had become identified with his socialist adversaries, the Possibilists. In 1911, however, Lafargue again defended a reformist position that included municipal solutions to problems ("Paul Lafargue," 172-97, 449-50). 53. Malon to Jules Guesde, 8 April 1880; cited in Stafford, From Anarchism to Reformism, 160. 54. Ibid., 161. 55. See Malon to Paul Lafargue, Zurich, 18 May 1880; cited in "Correspondance des militants," 468—71. In a letter to César De Paepe dated 2 May 1880, Malon stated that he was between the "revolutionists" 'and the "evolutionists" and was working to bring them together ("Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 49 [1909]: 80-81). 56. See the discussion by Stafford, From Anarchism to Reformism, 162-69. 57. See Malon's article "Le Programme de 1880," 3 9 - 5 8 , for an extended discussion of the negotiations surrounding the Minimum Program.

Notes to Pages 7 9 - 8 2

169

58. The text of the Minimum Program is reproduced in Stafford, From Anarchism to Reformism, 273-74. 59. Malon recognized the ambiguity of the program, remarking: "C'était trop naïvement proclamer que, tout en élaborant un programme de réformes, pour tâcher d'accroître le nombre de ses adhérents, on prétendait rester un parti exclusivement révolutionnaire" ("Le Programme de 1880," 54n). 60. See Malon's "Programme électoral des Travailleurs socialistes," La Revue socialiste, no. 10 (20 July 1880): 417-24. 61. The word "socialist" had been added to the name of the congress. 62. The preface simply added a new complication to any consistent interpretation of the document. It declared that socialists should "tenter une dernière expérience aux élections municipales et législatives de 1881 et, pour le cas où elle n'aboutirait pas, n'en retiendrait purement et simplement que l'action révolutionnaire." 63. Marx, at this time, viewed Malon favorably. He wrote to Sorge that Malon had "declared himself for modern scientific socialism" (Karl Marx to F.A. Sorge, 5 November 1880; cited in Maitron, Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français, vol. 7: Deuxième partie, 1864—1871, 232. 64. Reports in Malon's police file indicate that he left Zurich on 1 July and that by 19 July he was in Paris (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). 65. "Le Programme de 1880," 56n. Léon Blum claimed that it was Guesde who insisted that Malon not collaborate with Rochefort's L'Intransigeant ("Les Congrès ouvriers et socialistes français"; reprinted in L'Oeuvre de Léon Blum, 418). 66. There are many reports concerning L'Emancipation in Arch. PPo., BA/1170. 67. The other editors were Guesde, Marouck, Rogelet, Vaughan, Louis Monttet, and Fournière. The first issue announced the following editorial policy: "Au point de vue pratique l'Emancipation sera tout d'abord un organe de conciliation entre les différentes fractions du parti socialiste, sans départer néanmoins des conclusions scientifiques modernes." 68. Malon to Georg von Vollmar, La Ciotat (Bouches-du-Rhône), 15 August 1880; Collection Vollmar, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, no. 1356 (hereafter cited as Collection Vollmar). In a subsequent letter, Malon made clear that by political action he meant "electoral politics" (Malon to Georg von Vollmar, Marseille, 18 August 1880, Collection Vollmar, no. 1356). 69. See "Le Programme de 1880," 57. See also Malon's laments in a letter to Fournière dated 2 December 1880, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 47 (1908): 222—23. There are several letters from Malon (in Lyon and Marseille) to Vollmar during late 1880 that refer to the financial disaster facing L'Emancipation. There are even references to a loan granted by Vollmar to Malon that the latter promises to repay. These letters are in the Collection Vollmar, no. 1356. There are similar lamentations in the letters from Malon to Fournière, December 1880-March 1881, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 47 (1908): 222-29, and in letters to Ga-

170

Notes to Pages 82-86

briel Deville, 1 October and 19 November 1880, Deville Papers, Archives Nationales, Paris, 51AP2; cited in Hall, "Gabriel Deville," 165. Finally, there is a letter from Malon to Eduard Bernstein about a loan of 24,000 francs made by the latter; presumably, this is connected with financing the new paper L'Emancipation (Malon to Bernstein, Paris, 25 September 1880, Collection Bernstein, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, D440). 70. There is a report, dated 20 December 1881, in Arch. PPo., BA/1170 that Rochefort paid 2,218.05 francs to free Malon from Sainte-Pélagie. 71. See the public letter from Malon dated 25 August published in Le Citoyen, 27 August 1881. 72. Le Nouveau Parti, 2:60. 73. "Liberté collective," Le Citoyen, 2 April 1881. 74. There are good discussions of all of this in Stafford, From Anarchism to Reformism, 169-98; and Hall, "Gabriel Deville," 177-229. 75. L'Emancipation, 6 November 1880. 76. Le Prolétaire, 19 November 1881; cited in Stafford, From Anarchism to Reformism, 176. 77. L'Egalité, 11 December 1881. 78. Malon to Eugène Fournière, middle of December 1881, "Correspondence de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 47 (1908): 234. 79. Ibid., 233. 80. See, for example, Brousse's La Commune et le Parti ouvrier (Paris, 1882). 81. Malon to Eugène Fournière, middle of December 1881, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 47 (1908): 234. 82. Le Nouveau Parti, 2:4n. 83. Ibid., 58-59. 84. This good point is somewhat exaggerated by Landauer, "Origin of Socialist Reformism," 103. Malon, for example, worked to get Jean-Baptiste Dumay elected over the Guesdist candidate in the Belleville elections of early 1883. As it turned out, both Dumay and the Guesdist candidate lost to the Radical Lacroix. See Dumay's Mémoires, 321, 370 nn. 12, 15, 16. 85. The police, always informed about such things, have a report of a scission between Brousse and Malon in the National Committee of the FTSF dated 19 August 1883 (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). 86. See Malon's public letter, dated 5 March 1884, stating that he is confined to his bed (L'Intransigeant, 8 March 1884). 87. Leslie Derfler has referred to Lafargue in exactly these words, noting that Lafargue "served as the chief theoretician of and propagandist of Marxism in France during the three decades that followed [the founding of the first French Marxist party in 1882]" ("Paul Lafargue and the Founding of the First French Marxist Party" [Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society for French Historical Studies, Columbia, S.C., March 1988]). Similarly Jacques Girault has referred to Lafargue as "the economist [and] philosophe of the Parti Ouvrier" (Introduction to Paul Lafargue: Textes choisis [Paris: Editions Sociales, 1970], 58). And Jean Bruhat wrote that Lafargue was "plus théoricien

Notes to Pages 86-89

171

que Guesde, recherchant plus volontiers les origines philosophiques du socialisme scientifique" ("Paul Lafargue et la tradition du socialisme révolutionnaire français," Cahiers internationaux, July-August 1949, 65). 88. Varlet [pseudonym of J. Duret], Paul Lafargue: Théoricien du marxisme (Paris: Editions Sociales Internationales, 1933), 7. See the similar assessment by Paul Louis, Cent cinquante ans de pensée socialiste (Paris: Rivière, 1947), 194. 89. Girault, Introduction to Paul Lafargue, 50. 90. Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, vol. 2: The Golden Age, trans. P. S. Falla (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 141-42. 91. Cohn, "Paul Lafargue," 453-54. 92. Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste, 134. In general, Willard gives Lafargue a qualified commendation, suggesting that except for Deville (who deserted the ranks of the party) "seul Lafargue a une connaissance sérieuse de la philosophie marxiste et son apport théorique, quoique très inférieur à celui de Kautsky, Antonio Labriola, Plekhanov et surtout Lénine, n'est pas négligeable" (159). Also see the similar assessment in Willard's "Paul Lafargue, critique littéraire," Le Mouvement social (April-June 1967): 102-10. 93. Paul Lafargue, Idéalisme et matérialisme dans la conception de l'histoire, 4th ed. (Paris: Librarie Populaire du Parti Socialiste, n.d. [originally published, 1895]), 28. 94. Ibid., 34. Lafargue is consciously paraphrasing the similar position taken by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. 95. Lafargue, Idéalisme et matérialisme, 38—39. 96. Ibid., 34. 97. There is, however, a curious inconsistency in Lafargue's argument, for he ends Idéalisme et matérialisme dans la conception de l'histoire with an appeal to "un idéal de paix et de bonheur, l'idéal d'une société où il n'y aurait ni mien ni tien, où tout serait à tous, où l'égalité et la fraternité seraient les seuls liens qui réuniraient les hommes." And he daims that this ideal "est une réminiscence de cet âge d'or, de ce paradis terrestre,... il est un souvenir lointain de cette époque communiste que l'homme a dû traverser avant d'arriver à la propriété privée" (45—46). 98. Lafargue, in Le Socialiste, 15 August 1894, 4; cited in Willard, Le Mouvement socialiste, 161. 99. Paul Lafargue, Le Droit à la paresse, which originally appeared as a series of articles in L'Egalité during 1880. References are to the new edition edited by Maurice Dommanget (Paris: Maspero, 1970). 100. Lafargue, Le Droit à la paresse, 126. 101. Ibid., 129-30. 102. Ibid., 132-33. 103. Lafargue, Origine et évolution de la propriété (Paris: Delagrave, 1895), 315, and Idéalisme et matérialisme, 25. Origine et évolution de la propriété originally appeared in Le Socialiste in 1890 and 1891. It was published along with a "refutation" by Yves Guyot in 1895; references are to this edition, in which Lafargue's essay covers pp. 299-530.

172

Notes to Pages 89-93

104. See the excellent analysis of Lafargue in Cohn, "Paul Lafargue." 105. See Lafargue's Origine et évolution de la propriété. 106. Lafargue, Origine et évolution de la propriété, 317-51. 107. This point is made by Perrot, "Les Guesdistes," 708. 108. Lafargue, Origine et évolution de la propriété, 333-34. Lafargue's image of the "transparence" of the noble savage recurs in other works. For example, in 1895 he wrote: Il est bien étable que l'homme ignore la jalousie et l'amour paternel tant qu'il vit dans un milieu communiste; les femmes et les hommes sont alors polygames, la femme prend autant de maris que cela lui plaît et l'homme autant de femmes qu'il peut, et les voyageurs nous rapportent que tous ces braves gens vivent contents et plus unis que les membres de la triste et égoïste famille monogamique. (Idealisme et matérialisme,

33-34)

Also see Lafargue's Le Droit à la paresse. 109. Lafargue, Origine et évolution de la propriété, 452. 110. Ibid., 511. 111. Ibid., 517. 112. Ibid., 513. 113. Ibid., 516. 114. That Lafargue saw this as an inevitable result of economic development is clear from various passages; for example: "Mais ni la magie des utopies, ni l'héroïsme des sacrifices, ne pouvaient ramener le communisme: la force brutale des phénomènes économiques devait réussir là où la force intelligente des hommes avait échoué" (Origine et évolution de la propriété, 526). 115. Lafargue, Origine et évolution de la propriété, 510. 116. Ibid., 527. 117. Paul Lafargue to Jules Guesde, London, 29 November 1879; cited in "Correspondance des militants," 456. 118. Paul Lafargue, "Le Lendemain de la révolution," Le Socialiste, 31 Décembre 1887; 7, 14, 21 January 1888. 119. Paul Lafargue to Jules Guesde, London, 29 November 1879; cited in "Correspondance des militants," 456. 120. Paul Lafargue to Martignetti, 3 September 1891 ; Martignetti Archives, International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam; cited in Cohn, "Paul Lafargue," 298. 121. Exposé des écoles, 237n. 122. Ibid., 236. 123. See, for example, Histoire du socialisme, 3:927-47, 968-82; Le Socialisme intégral, 1:26—28; and Lundis socialistes: Précis historique, théorique et pratique de socialisme (Paris: Alcan, 1892), 131-38. 124. Histoire du socialisme, 3:929; Lundis socialistes, 131. In his Histoire du socialisme, Malon calls the Communist Manifesto "l'oeuvre capital du socialisme allemand, avant 1848" (3:926). 125. See Malon's article "Karl Marx et Proudhon," La Revue socialiste S (1887): 15-22, where he translated the 1865 letter from Marx to Schweitzer that was so critical of Proudhon. 126. "Les Collectivistes français," 240-41, 314-27.

Notes to Pages 9 4 - 9 6

173

127. It was in the 1880 series of La Revue socialiste (no. 5 [5 May 1880], 275—86) that Lafargue's translation of Engels's "Socialisme utopique et socialisme scientifique" appeared. Also see Malon's "Les Collectivistes français," 327. 128. The discussion of Marx's ideas covers twenty-six pages; the discussion of Lassalle, twenty-three. Malon also translated Lassalle's Capital et travail. 129. Histoire du socialisme, 3:982. 130. Le socialisme intégral, 1:28. 131. Lundis socialistes, 138. For a similar statement, see "Les Collectivistes français," 116. 132. Eugène Fournière, in "La Mort de Benoît Malon," 423. 133. The polemical force of his huge Histoire du socialisme is to show the diverse roots of modern socialism. The same point is made in Le Socialisme intégral, 1:126. 134. Lundis socialistes, 21. 135. Ibid., 58. 136. "Le Collectivisme en France," 998; see generally 990-1016. 137. Malon translated Lassalle's Capital et travail and Schaeffle's La Quintessence du socialisme (Paris: Derveaux, 1880). For Malon's praise of the two see, for example, the discussions in Histoire du socialisme, 3:982—1012, 1043-50. 138. For the assessment of Malon's contemporaries see, for example, the comments of Deville (particularly that cited above on p. 1, to the effect that Malon was a "vulgarizer" who effected "a systematic deformation of Marxism") in Principes socialistes, xx-xxviii. Present-day scholars who have agreed with such assessments include not only variously styled Marxists but also the historian of the "revolutionary Right," Zeev Sternhell. See Sternhell's Ni droite ni gauche, 27-28. 139. See, for example, Eugène Fournière's "Benoît Malon et le marxisme," La Revue socialiste 18 (1893): 541-43. Fournière states that at La Revue socialiste Malon was "the most Marxist of us all." 140. Fournière, in "La Mort de Benoît Malon," 422. Rouanet made essentially the same point in his series of articles entitled "Le Matérialisme économique de Marx" in La Revue socialiste 5 (1887): 395-422, 579-602; 6 (1887): 76-86, 278-94, 507-31. 141. Mais, demandera-t-on, quelle est la philosophie du collectivisme? Elle n'est pas encore faite; positiviste au fond, matérialiste par certains côtés, procédant à la fois de Saint-Simon, d'Auguste Comte, de Littré, de Proudhon, de Stuart Mill, de Darwin, de Bukle, de Spencer, de Buchner, de Maleschott, d'Emile Accolas, de Naquet, et elle n'a pas trouvé encore sa formule définitive. (Exposé des écoles, 245-46; emphasis in the original)

142. Exposé des écoles, 246—55. 143. Ibid., 256-64. 144. "Collectivisme et socialisme: Réponse à deux questions," La Revue socialiste 6 (1887): 342, 353. 145. Exposé des écoles, 264-67, 241-42. 146. As, for example, in a January 1876 letter that he and Joseph Favre

174

Notes to Pages 97-101

wrote to the congress at Lausanne; see Malon's "Le Collectivisme en France," 1002. 147. Malon, letter of 25 July 1879; cited in Lombard, Au berceau du socialisme français, 52. 148. See "Le Collectivisme en France." This is an extended discussion of the debates over collectivism among socialists during the late 1870s. 149. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:301; Lundis socialistes, 224. 150. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:301-7; Lundis socialistes, 225-32. 151. See "Les Collectivistes français," 309-10. 152. Histoire du socialisme, 2:718n. 153. Lundis socialistes, 235-45. 154. Le Socialisme intégral, 2:21-67. 155. Malon was critical of what he termed historical fatalism. See, for example, Exposé des écoles, 34; "Le Mouvement syndical," 865; Le Nouveau Parti, 2:53-57. 156. Lefranc, Le Mouvement socialiste, 1:41. 157. Collectivism is seen by some present-day analysts as a defining element of "true" socialism. But, as I suggested above, this is problematic because most writers of the period assumed that socialism was a comprehensive category that included the left-wing opponents of the collectivists. 158. Michelle Perrot goes so far as to claim that during the nineteenth century "le marxisme n'avait pas vraiment pénétré en France" ("Les Guesdistes," 702). This goes too far, but it is preferable to those attempts to understand the history of the French Left during the nineteenth century in terms of the history of Marxism; see, for example, Judt's Marxism and the French Left. Such attempts neglect the importance of the reformist tradition. CHAPTER FOUR 1. Jean Jaurès, "Les Origines du socialisme allemand," La Revue socialiste 16 (1892): 167. 2. See Malon to Georg von Vollmar, La Ciotat, 15 August 1880, Collection Vollmar, no. 1356; Malon to Eugène Fournière, 2 February 1881, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 46 (1907): 482. Similar complaints are made in subsequent letters. For example, Malon to Eugène Fournière, middle of December 1881, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 47 (1908): 233. 3. Peyron, "Le Monument de Benoît Malon," 45. 4. See the discussion in Peyron, "Le Monument de Benoît Malon," 58—59. 5. Reports in Malon's Paris police file (Arch. PPo., BA/1170) indicate that there was talk in both 1885 and 1890 of Malon running for office, but he always declined. See, for example, the article in Cri du peuple, 3 September 1885, about Malon as a candidate of the Coalition socialiste révolutionnaire; followed by Malon's refusals published in Cri du peuple, 16 September 1885, and in La Revue socialiste 2 (1885): 821. He nonetheless received 15,262 votes in the legislative elections in October 1885—not enough to be elected. 6. "Le Programme de 1880," 56-57.

Notes to Pages 102-4

175

7. La Revue socialiste had appeared briefly under Malon's editorship in 1880 as a bimonthly. During 1885 the editorial offices were located at 19, rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis (10th arrondissement); in 1886 they were moved to 43, rue des Petits-Carreaux (2d arrondissement). 8. The most informative discussion of La Revue socialiste is the recent article of Madeleine Rebérioux, "La Revue socialiste," Cahiers Georges Sorel 5 (1987): 15—38. Unfortunately for our purposes, it focuses primarily on the years following Malon's death, 1893-1914. 9. Georges Renard, the editor after Malon's death in 1893, similarly referred to Malon as "notre compagnon d'armes, d'exil et d'espérance"; cited by Rebérioux, "La Revue socialiste," 17. 10. On Rouanet generally see Maitron, Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français, vol. 15: Troisième partie, 1871—1914, 91-94. On his duties at the journal see, for example, Malon to Eugène Fournière, Paris, 20 February 1885, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 47 (1908): 38. 11. See Gustave Rouanet, "La Discussion sur le blé," La Revue socialiste S (1887): 288-97, where Rouanet cheered Jaurès's "bonne et saine politique économique." Jaurès was still a Radical at this time. 12. See Justinien Raymond, "Eugène Fournière," L'Actualité de l'histoire 25 (1958): 2—20; and Maitron, Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement outlier français, vol. 12: Troisième partie, 1871—1914, 215-18. 13. See the letters from Malon to Eugène Fournière, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 47 (1908): 3 4 - 4 4 , 223-36; 48 (1908): 17-31, 113-21, 207-20, 481-89. 14. The law of 29 July 1881 had eliminated the "caution" money that had restricted the appearance of new journals, and, more generally, eased legal pressures. 15. His address was 15, rue Monsigny, in the 2d arrondissement. 16. Adrien Veber, who worked at and contributed to the La Revue socialiste, wrote that Simon was a curious person in "rubans, soiries, velours, tulles et dentelles." He also referred to his anti-Semitism, stating that Simon boasted of "ne traiter jamais avec les juifs, dût-il leur payer les merchandises meilleur marché" (Adrien Veber to Georges Renard, May 1894; cited in Rebérioux, "La Revue socialiste," 18). 17. Malon to César De Paepe, Lugano, 28 May 1877, "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," La Revue socialiste 48 (1908): 439. 18. "Entrée en ligne," La Revue socialiste 1 (1885): 1. The manifesto continues: Nous le faisons, ne demandant que deux choses à nos collaborateurs: 1. Apporter des investigations et des idées, non des invectives; 2. Laisser au pape catholique les prétentions saugrenues à l'infaillibilité.

19. In a letter to Karl Kautsky in 1891 or 1892, Malon proposed to exchange La Revue socialiste for Die Neue Zeit and suggested that they use each other's articles (the letter is in the Kautsky Collection, International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam, D xvii 588).

176

Notes to Pages 104-9

20. The journal was 96 pages during its first years, but it became longer in later years: 112 pages in mid-1887; 128 pages in 1889. 21. The society wished to be "au Socialisme ce que la Société d'économie politique est à l'orthodoxie officielle et a l'optimisme bourgeois conservateur" (Albert Orry, Les Socialistes indépendants [Paris: Rivière, 1911], 14-15). 22. May's home was at 7, rue Beranger. 23. See Orry, Les Socialistes indépendants, 15. 24. Eugenia W. Herbert, The Artist and Social Reform: France and Belgium, 1885-1898 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), 23n. 25. Lundis socialistes, 167. 26. See Malon's "Les Collectivistes français," 308—9, and Manuel d'économie sociale (Paris: Derveaux, 1883). 27. Malon wrote to Pecqueur in 1882: "Vos livres . . . m'avaient fait vous considérer au même titre que Vidal comme l'un des plus éminents représentants du socialisme français" (Malon to Constantin Pecqueur, Paris, 9 December [1882], Archives Pecqueur, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam). There are seven letters from Malon to Pecqueur between 9 December 1882 and 10 August 1883. Malon even visited Pecqueur on 5 January 1883. 28. Malon, 4 November 1880; cited in Lombard, Au berceau du socialisme français, 55—56. 29. See "Correspondance de Benoît Malon," Le Revue socialiste 46 (1907): 487. 30. Le Nouveau Parti was published in two volumes. The first volume was initially published in 1881. The discussion of revolution and reform is in vol. 1, pp. 74-86. 31. Le Nouveau Parti, 1:89; see generally 87-90. 32. Le Nouveau Parti, 1:76. 33. Ibid., 77. 34. Ibid., 2:83. 35. Ibid., 84. 36. See, for example, Le Socialisme intégral, 1:402—4. Landauer has suggested that Malon came to embrace this reformist position only in 1885—86 ("Origin of Socialist Reformism," 81—107). I believe that this important shift occurred in 1881-82. 37. Le Socialisme intégral, 2:xvi-xvii. 38. This is not the place to embark on a long excursus on the Western republican tradition or on the part played by the French thinkers. Suffice it to say here that since the mid-eighteenth century, classical republican themes— similar to those analyzed by J. G. A. Pocock in the Italian Renaissance and in early modern Anglo-American thought—were common in French sociopolitical thought. See the discussion in my Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 34—47,56—78; and Nicolet, L'Idée républicaine en France. 39. The classic modern account is Harold T. Parker, The Cult of Antiquity and the French Revolutionaries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937). See also the essay of Pierre Vidal-Naquet, "Tradition de la démocratie grecque," which precedes the text of Moses I. Finley, Démocratie antique et

Notes to Pages 109-13

177

démocratie moderne (Paris: Payot, 1976); see esp. 15-39. On the fêtes see Mona Ozouf, La Fête révolutionnaire, 1789-1799 (Paris: Gallimard, 1976). 40. On Volney see Mouza Raskolnikoff, "Volney et les Idéologues: Le refus de Rome," Revue historique 542 (April-June 1982): 357-73. The contrast between ancient and modern liberty is a familiar theme in Constant's writings. It is extensively analyzed by Stephen Holmes, Benjamin Constant and the Making of Modern Liberalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). On the use of Athenian models see Nicole Loraux and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, "La Formation de l'athènes bourgeoise: Essai d'historiographie, 1750-1850," in Classical Influences on Western Thought, A.D. 1650-1870, ed. R. R. Bolgar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 169-222. 41. On discussions on the Left of themes from the tradition see my PierreJoseph Proudhon. 42. See Michael James, "Pierre-Louis Roederer, Jean-Baptiste Say, and the Concept of Industrie," History of Political Economy, vol. 9, no. 4 (1977): 455—75; and Thomas E. Kaiser, "Politics and Political Economy in the Thought of the Ideologues," History of Political Economy, vol. 12, no. 2 (1980): 141-60. 43. For further analysis of the residues of republicanism in late nineteenthcentury socialist thought, see my "Interpreting Georges Sorel," 239-57; and my "Representations of Labor and Workers," in Intellectuals and Political Life, ed. Farquhar et al. 44. See Malon's Exposé des écoles, 8. Such a concern for how the French Revolution inoculated the Left with authoritarianism was a common theme of the federalist or syndicalist Left in France—Quinet, Michelet, Proudhon, and others. 45. Lundis socialistes, 36. 46. See Le Socialisme intégral, 1:175—82. 47. Lundis socialistes, 36—55. 48. Le Nouveau Parti, 2:17. 49. Ibid., 25-26. 50. See the discussions in Patrick H. Hutton, The Cult of the Revolutionary Tradition: The Blanquists in French Politics, 1864—1893 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), esp. 1—17; François Furet and Mona Ozouf, eds., The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture, vol. 3: The Transformation of Political Culture, 1789-1848 (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989); Furet, La Gauche et la Révolution Française; Jeremy Jennings, "Syndicalism and the French Revolution," Journal of Contemporary History 26 (1991): 71-96. 51. See Jean T. Joughin, The Paris Commune in French Politics, 1871— 1880, 2 vols. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955). 52. "Déclaration," La Revue socialiste 2 (1885): 865. Similar statements frequently appeared in La Revue socialiste. In the first number, for example, there is a review of Elie Peyron's Les Questions sociales in which the reviewer sympathetically notes Peyron's demand for state intervention to assist the needy and unemployed. The review concludes: "Le jour où la classe dirigeante ac-

178

Notes to Pages 113-15

cepterait ce programme philantropique, elle diminuerait grandement les chances de révolution violente et commencerait la série des réformes sociales urgentes" (La Revue socialiste 1 [1885]: 101). 53. See Malon's "Socialisme à l'Exposition," L'Intransigeant, 18 June 1887; and S. Deynaud, "Le Socialisme à L'Exposition de 1889," La Revue socialiste 6 (1887): 69-75. Malon's limited role is discussed by Joy Hall, "Worker and Socialist Responses to the Exhibit of Social Economy at the Paris Exposition of 1889" (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society for French Historical Studies, Columbus, Ohio, March 1990). 54. "Physiologie du boulangisme," La Revue socialiste 7 (1888): 507—21. 55. Ibid., 513-14. They argued that republican governments need not inevitably breed corruption. In fact, they depended, as Montesquieu had argued, on "virtue." 56. "Physiologie du boulangisme," 521. 57. Ibid., 509. Also see L'Egalité, 15 February 1889, where Malon argued that the democratic republic was the basis of socialist action and therefore to be defended against reactionaries and "doubtful saviors." 58. Malon, "Physiologie du boulangisme," 507. Malon goes on: Nous ne pouvons, tu le sais, être avec ceux qui . . . incarnent le progrès et les revendications populaires dans un homme et, ce qui est pis, dans un soldat. Chaque fois qu'en France on est entré dans cette voie, on est tombé dans les fondrières du despotisme et de l'invasion.

See also La Bataille, 14 February 1889, where Malon is quoted as saying that he considered "le boulangisme comme perilleux pour la République et pour l'avenir de la France." 59. For general discussions of this issue, see J.-L. Puech, La Tradition socialiste en France et la société des nations (Paris: Rivière, 1921); Milorad M. Drachkovitch, Les Socialismes français et allemand et le problème de la guerre 1870-1914 (Geneva: Droz, 1953), 1-180; and Michel Winock, "Socialisme et patriotisme en France, 1891-1894," Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine 20 (July-September 1973): 376-423. 60. Some analysts argue that patriotism moved from the Left to the Right on the French political spectrum after the Boulanger crisis and the Dreyfus affair; see, for example, Albert Thibaudet, Les Idées politiques en France (Paris: Stock, 1932), 211; René Rémond, The Right Wing in France: From 1815 to De Gaulle, trans. James M. Laux (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1966), 208; Zeev Sternhell, "Paul Deroulède and the Origins of Modern French Nationalism," Journal of Contemporary History 6 (1971). In fact, themes of patriotism and nationalism continued to appear on both Right and Left, albeit with different meanings; see the recent discussion by Michel Winock, Nationalisme, antisémitisme et fascisme en France (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1990). 61. Emile Joindy, "Le Patriotisme, c'est l'ennemi," Le Parti ouvrier, 27-28 April 1894. 62. Jean Allemane, "Internationalisme," Le Parti ouvrier, 11-12 September 1893. 63. The Allemanists admitted, however, that in the event of the invasion of

Notes to Pages 1 1 6 - 1 9

179

France, they would be "les premiers à défendre le pays qui a vu naître les principes de la Révolution, du progrès et de la civilisation" (cited in Winock, "Socialisme et patriotisme en France," 417; as Winock has aptly put it, "il est patent que l'antipatriotisme des [socialistes] Français est peu profond: purement défensif, c'est une protestation passionnée contre le détournement d'un sentiment populaire et naturel, nourri de glorieuse histoire, à des fins conservatrices et antisocialistes" [419]). 64. La Petite République, 11 September 1892. 65. Edouard Vaillant wrote in 1893 that "la préoccupation d'assurer la sécurité de la nation française est aussi grande, chez nous, socialistes, que chez tous les autres citoyens, car nous avons plus que personne, en vue la défense de la République par laquelle seule pourra être réalisée la transformation sociale nécessaire, l'avènement de la République socialiste" (Le Parti socialiste, 1 - 8 October 1893; cited in Maurice Dommanget, Edouard Vaillant, un grand socialiste [Paris: La Table Ronde, 1956], 239). 66. Millerand's Saint-Mandé address is reproduced in his Le Socialisme réformiste français (Paris: Société Nouvelle de Librairie et d'Edition, 1903), 19-35. 67. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:52. 68. Ibid., 82. 69. The passages suggesting a deterministic view of history reflect Malon's enduring fascination with scientific concepts. In 1872, for example, he wrote the following: Nous avons reconnu que le monde social et le monde intellectuel sont, comme le monde physique, régis par des lois naturelles et assujettis à des relations de succession et de similitude indépendantes de notre intervention personnelle. Nous avons admis que notre volonté elle-même se détermine en vertu de lois naturelles, qu'elle ne saurait enfreindre. (Exposé des écoles, iii) Later in the same work, however, Malon was critical of "historical fatalism" (34). See also L'Egalité, 15 February 1889, for a similar statement of the inevitable transformation of society. 70. Exposé des écoles, 1:81. See also the note on p. 181, where Malon distinguished "social determinism" from the more appropriate application of "the calculus of probabilities." 71. "Le Mouvement syndical," 865. 72. Le Nouveau Parti, 2:55; see generally 5 1 - 5 9 . 73. Le Nouveau Parti, 2:57. 74. Ibid., 53. 75. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:51-84. 76. Ibid., 17-18. 77. Ibid., 28. 78. The subtitle to volume 1 is Histoire des théories et tendances générales; the subtitle to volume 2 is Des Réformes possibles et des moyens pratiques. 79. See Le Socialisme intégral, 1:201-9. 80. Lundis socialistes, 223. 81. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:30; Lundis socialistes, 223.

180

Notes to Pages 120-24

82. See Le Socialisme intégral, 2:69-117. 83. See Le Socialisme intégral, 2:21-67. 84. See Le Socialisme intégral, 2:119-68. 85. For this distinction between communism and collectivism see Le Socialisme intégral, 1:399-404; Lundis socialistes, 255-67. And refer to the discussion in chapter 3, 97. 86. Malon's extended discussion of speculation and stock jobbing in France first appeared under the title "Le Progrès de l'agiotage" in La Revue socialiste 1 (1885): 100-24, 210-29. It was revised and reissued as the first number of a series of pamphlets called the "Bibliothèque de La Revue socialiste" that was published by the administration of the journal. Malon's articles were published as L'Agiotage de 1715 à 1870 (Paris: Administration de la Revue Socialiste, 1885); all citations refer to this edition. 87. For the quote, see Malon, L'Agiotage, 33. 88. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Manuel du spéculateur à la Bourse; cited in Malon, L'Agiotage, 46-47. 89. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:394-96; 2:209-63; Lundis socialistes, 268-76. 90. See Le Socialisme intégral, 2:265-350; and Lundis socialistes, 277-86. 91. See Le Socialisme intégral, 2:169-208; and Lundis socialistes, 255-67. 92. See Le Socialisme intégral, 2:351—433. Nenah Elinor Fry exaggerates, I believe, when she suggests that Malon and his circle looked "almost invariably" to the state; see her "Integral Socialism and the Third Republic," 208, 213-14. 93. Lundis socialistes, 288; see generally, 287—96. 94. Le Socialisme réformiste (Paris: Derveaux, 1885), 49. 95. On decision of issues by popular referendum see Le Socialisme intégral, 1:382-90. For the phrase "la precision du mandat," 391. 96. There was an important qualification of universal suffrage. Malon worried about the potential clericalism and conservatism of women and therefore proposed only the "serial" extension of the franchise to women—that is, the progressive extension of suffrage as education was extended. He did advocate immediate civil equality. See Le Socialisme intégral, 1:382. And, according to Malon's Paris police file, he was a patron of the Ligue pour l'affranchissement de la femme (Arch. PPo., BA/1170). I address Malon's stance on the family and women in more detail below. 97. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:390-404; Lundis socialistes, 297-305. 98. Malon to Wilhelm Liebknecht, Cannes, 6 March 1891, Collection Liebknecht, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, 244 (hereafter cited as Collection Liebknecht). Malon went on to characterize FrenchGerman "hostility" as "la grande calamité européenne de cette fin de siècle." 99. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:61; see generally 60-73. 100. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:397-98. 101. See Malon's "Lettre adressée au meeting de Lausanne"; reproduced in Guillaume, L'Internationale, 4:10—14, and discussed above in chapter 2,53 —55.

Notes to Pages 124-27

181

102. Le Nouveau Parti, 2:123. This is a position that Malon reaffirmed in a dialogue with Emile Digeon in La Revue socialiste 1 (1885): 100-1,151-54. 103. Le Socialisme réformiste, 19, 27. 104. Le Socialisme intégral 1:309; see generally 34-36, 309-55; see also Lundis socialistes, 194-202. 105. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:336-40. 106. Ibid., 343. 107. Ibid., 343-47. 108. Ibid., 353. 109. Malon to Mathilde Roederer, Nuechâtel, 8 May 1872, Collection Descaves, pf. 32. 110. On this issue, see Michelle Perrot, "Women, Power, and History: The Case of Nineteenth-Century France," in Women, State and Revolution, ed. Reynolds, 4 4 - 5 9 . More generally, see Sowerwine, Sisters or Citizens?; and Joan Wallach Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 93-163. 111. Gustave Rouanet, "Le Travail des enfants et des femmes," Revue socialiste 3 (1886): 193-211, 334-44, 497-504; 4 (1886): 717-29, 799-808. 112. See the discussion by Patricia Hilden, Working Women and Socialist Politics in France, 1880-1914: A Regional Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 192-207. Also see Paul Lafargue, "The Woman Question," in The Right To Be Lazy and Other Studies, ed. and trans. Charles Kerr (Chicago: Kerr, 1909). 113. When discussing the problems within the nineteenth-century French family, Malon acknowledged that "le mal . . . est d'autant plus étendu qu'il plonge à la fois dans la loi et dans les moeurs" (Le Socialisme intégral, 1:353). 114. See Edmund Silberner, "French Socialism and the Jewish Question, 1865-1914," Historia Judaica 16 (April 1954): 3 - 3 8 , esp. 7-11; and Zeev Sternhell, Ni droite ni gauche, esp. 27-28, 53, and La Droite révolutionnaire, 1885—1914: Les origines françaises du fascisme (Paris: Seuil, 1978). See also, for example, Robert F. Byrnes, Antisemitism in Modern France (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1950), 156-78; and Stephen Wilson, Ideology and Experience: Antisemitism in France at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982), esp. 319-78. 115. "La Question juive," La Revue socialiste 3 (1886): 505-14. See the discussion below. 116. Phrases such as "capitalist Jew" characteristically were imbedded in wide-ranging attacks on all types of speculators—"puritan Yankees," "Roman dukes," and so on. In L'Agiotage, for example, Malon wrote the following: Dans le grand oeuvre de la mobilisation et de la monopolisation de la richesse publique, les Péreires, saint-simoniens, donnaient la main au roi d'Israël, Rothschild, à son sujet Fould, au puritain Yankee Hottinguer, au libéral Laffite, au duc romain de la Galliera, à l'espagnol Aguado. ( 4 0 - 4 1 )

There were also articles in La Revue socialiste against anti-Semitism. See, for example, the article by Henri Tubiana, "Les Croisades au XIXe siècle," La

182

Notes to Pages 127-31

Revue socialiste 4 (1886): 634-36; and Adrien Veber's critique of Regnard's Aryens et semites in La Revue socialiste 12 (1890): 628-40. 117. "La Question juive," 505-14. 118. Ibid., 514. 119. Ibid., 508. 120. Ibid., 511-12. 121. See Victor M. Glasberg, "Intent and Consequences: The 'Jewish Question' in the French Socialist Movement of the Late Nineteenth Century," Jewish Social Studies 36 (1974): 61-71. 122. This is a point made by a reviewer of Malon's La Morale sociale in "Revue des livres," La Revue socialiste 4 (1886): 1151. 123. La Question sociale, 123. 124. La Morale sociale, 3 6 3 - 6 4 ; see also 367-76. 125. La Morale sociale was originally published in La Revue socialiste 2 (1885): 673-92, 780-800, 881-906, 986-1006, 1076-99; 3 (1886): 1-18, 107-26, 238-53, 301-25, 401-17, 524-39; 4 (1886): 577-93, 730-36, 775-88. It was then published as a book (Paris: Administration de la Revue Socialiste, 1886). It was reissued with an introduction by Jean Jaurès (Paris: Giard & Brière, n.d. [1894]). All citations are to this latter edition. 126. For the characterization of the book as a "rough sketch," see Jaurès's introduction, La Morale sociale, i. 127. La Morale sociale, 5 - 5 3 . 128. The most notable example of this tendency is Malon's five-volume Histoire du socialisme. 129. In conclusion, Malon observed: La suprême sagesse de ce temps consiste peut-être à penser en pessimiste, car la nature des choses est cruelle et triste, et à agir en optimiste, car l'intervention humaine est efficace pour le mieux-être moral et social et que nul effort de justice et de bonté, quoiqu'il puisse nous apparaître, n'est jamais complètement perdu. {La Morale sociale, 373; emphasis in the original)

130. La Morale sociale, 6. Also see Le Socialisme intégral, 1:56-60. 131. La Morale sociale, 37; but on this question generally, see 2 4 - 3 8 and also the conclusion, 363-76. 132. See Le Socialisme intégral, 1:17. Also see the discussion by Fry, "Integral Socialism and the Third Republic," 75-80. 133. La Morale Sociale, 22. 134. Ibid., 373-74. 135. Ibid., 53. 136. Ibid., 173-206. 137. Ibid., 177. In Le Socialisme intégral, Malon praised early Christian restriction of "property" to need, reserving everything produced beyond this for the poor (1:99-100). 138. La Morale sociale, 178. 139. Ibid., 206. 140. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:96-100; Lundis socialistes, 11-18. 141. Lundis socialistes, 14-15.

Notes to Pages 131-36

183

142. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:224. 143. Lundis socialistes, viii. 144. Malon was equally critical of the pantheism of Spinoza, Schelling, Herder, and Hegel, charging them with divinizing reality and exaggerating the fatality of historical movement. 145. Le Socialisme intégral, 1:231-35. 146. Ibid., 235-39. 147. Ibid., 244-51. 148. Ibid., 59-60. 149. Le Nouveau Parti, 1:127. This part of the work was added for the 1882 edition. 150. For contemporary visions of socialists, see Boris Blick, "What Is Socialism? French Liberal Views in the 1890s," in Crucible of Socialism, ed. Louis Patsouras (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press International, 1987), 358-402. 151. Lundis socialistes, 307—39. CONCLUSION 1. César De Paepe to Malon, Brussels, 24 February 1877; cited in La Revue socialiste 57 (1913): 308. 2. Malon to Wilhelm Liebknecht, Cannes, 6 March 1891, Collection Liebknecht, 244. 3. Réberioux, "Le Socialisme français," in Histoire générale du socialisme, ed. Droz, 171. The apparent unity was shattered by the Dreyfus affair and the dispute over "ministerialism." See Aaron Noland, The Founding of the French Socialist Party (1893—1905) (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956). 4. The "political reconciliation" included everyone except the "small clan of Brousse and some anarchists" (Malon to Wilhelm Liebknecht, Cannes, 29 March 1891, Collection Liebknecht, 244). 5. La Revue socialiste estimated that the number was 10,000. See "La Mort de Benoît Malon," 400. 6. Arch. PPo., BA/1170. 7. L'Humanité, 10 November 1913. The police estimated that the crowd was between 300 and 500 (Arch. PPo., no. 2904-1 [série des décédés]). 8. The notion that workers in France existed in an internal political exile, alienated from the Republic, does not stand up under recent scrutiny. See Berlanstein, Working People of Paris; Michel Winock, La Fièvre hexagonale: Les Grandes Crises politiques, 1871-1968 (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1986); and the review article by Robert Tombs, "History and the French Left, 1830-1981," The Historical Journal 31, no. 3 (1988): 733-44. But however politically integrated most workers had become, they continued to be marginalized socially and economically—note the success of conservative elites in retarding the passage of laws providing social protection. See Sanford Elwitt, The Third Republic Defended: Bourgeois Reform in France, 1880-1914 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986).

184

Notes to Pages 136-40

9. The syndicalist development of this stance has been recently analyzed by Julliard, Autonomie ouvrière; and Jennings, Syndicalism in France. 10. For the background of this debate during the Revolutionary period, see Keith Michael Baker's stimulating essays, now collected in one volume, Inventing the French Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). For the nineteenth-century legacy, see Pierre Birnbaum, Le Peuple et les gros (Paris: Grasset, 1979); and Alain Bergounioux and Bernard Manin, "L'Exclu de la nation: La Gauche française et son mythe de l'adversaire," Le Débat, no. 5 (October 1980): 45-53. 11. See, for example, Odile Rudelle, La République absolue: Aux origines de l'instabilité constitutionnelle de la France républicaine, 1870—1889 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1982). 12. See the comments of Fournière and many others in "La Mort de Benoît Malon," 386—443. Alexandre Millerand, in his famous Saint-Mandé speech of 30 May 1896, praised the historic leaders of French socialism and singled out Guesde, Vaillant, Brousse, and Malon for having "carried for the past twenty y e a r s . . . the battles and hopes of the organized proletariat" (see Millerand's Le Socialisme réformiste français, 19-35, for the text of the speech). 13. Rouanet, "La Discussion sur le blé," 292-93. 14. Jean Jaurès, "Les Origines du socialisme allemand," trans. Adrien Veber, La Revue socialiste 15 (1892): 641-59; 16 (1892): 11-30, 151-67; introduction to La Morale sociale; "Organisation socialiste," La Revue socialiste 21 (1895): 257-66, 385-408, 641-47; 22 (1895): 129-60; 23 (1896): 514-38. 15. Georges Lefranc suggests that it was exactly this search for a "moral" and "philosophical" socialism, to complement the "historical" socialism of Marx, that made Malon so attractive to Jaurès (Jaurès et le socialisme des intellectuels [Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1968], 29). 16. For the reference see Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, 2:120. For the quote from Jaurès see "Les Origines du socialisme allemand," La Revue socialiste 16 (1892): 167. 17. Jaurès, "Les Origines du socialisme allemand," La Revue socialiste 16 (1892): 167. Also see Jaurès's exchange with Lafargue, "L'Idéalisme de l'histoire," in Lafargue's Idéalisme et matérialisme. 18. Jean Jaurès, "Question de méthode," in his Etudes socialistes, 6th ed. (Paris: Ollendorff, 1902 [originally published in 1901]), li. 19. See Jaurès, Etudes socialistes, 33-121. 20. Jaurès, "Organisation socialiste," La Revue socialiste 22 (1895): 137. 21. See the section "De la propriété individuelle" in Jaurès, Etudes socialistes, 149-271. 22. Jean Maitron, "La Personalité du militant ouvrier français dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle," Le Mouvement social (October 1960-March 1961): 67-86. 23. I have adapted the terminology of Emile Durkheim. See his "Definition

Notes to Page 142

185

of Socialism," Socialism and Saint-Simon, trans. Charlotte Sattler (Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press, 1958), 5 - 2 8 . 24. I borrow the phrase from Jean Lacouture, Léon Blum, trans. George Holoch (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982), 540. 25. "La Mort de Benoît Malon," 422.

Index

L'Agriculteur, 42 Ajalbert, Jean, 105 Allemane, Jean, 2, 115, 146n.l8 Alliance, 40 Alliance de la démocratie sociale, 12, 13, 147n.25 Alliance internationale de la démocratie socialiste, 12, 46, 47 Alliance républicaine, 27 L'Almanach du peuple, 40 Althusser, Louis, 3 Anarchism and anarchists, 5, 6, 20; Proudhon, Bakunin, and, 10—14; Malon and, 45-46, 5 0 - 5 7 , 62, 64-65, 81, 124, 133, 139-141; in the Jura Federation, 45—46, 54; in Italy, 52-57 Anderson, R. D., 75 Arnould, Arthur, 28, 47 Augustine, Saint, 131 Babeuf, François-Noel ("Gracchus"), 51 Bachruch, Henri, 24, 25 Bakunin, Mikhail, 45, 49, 50; career and influence, 10-14, 16 Bakuninists, 76; in France before the Paris Commune, 20—21; in the Jura Federation during the 1870s, 45-46, 49-50; in Italy during the 1870s, 53, 57 Barberet, Jean-Joseph, 68—69 Bartholome, 136

Bastelica, André, 21 Bebel, August, 72 Becker, Jean-Philippe, 96 Béra, Léodile. See Léo, André Béra, Vittore Léodile, 41 Bernard, Claude, 118 Bernstein, Samuel, 70 Bignami, Enrico, 53, 55 Bismarck, Otto von, 32, 64 Blanc, Louis, 51, 63, 97, 103, 106 Blanqui, Louis-Auguste, 16, 28 Blanquists, 16, 37, 40, 49, 81, 113 Blum, Léon, 1 Bonvalet, 30 Boulanger, (General) Georges, 113-14 Bourdon, Antoine-Marie, 14 Boyer, Antide, 105 Brousse, Paul, 2, 48, 56, 71, 113; and the Minimum Program, 79; and L'Emancipation, 81; split with the Guesdists, 81-83; and Le Prolétaire, 82. See also Possibilists Buffier, Gaston [pseud. Nostag, Jules], 32 Buisson, Ferdinand, 35 Bulletin de la Fédération jurassienne, 40, 48, 54, 56 Buret, Eugène, 61 Cafiero, Carlo, 53 Camélinat, Zéphrin, 14 Carr, E. H., 12 Carvalho, Xavier de, 136

187

188 Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements (Comité des vingt arrondissements), 24-28 Chalain, Louis Henri, 26, 33, 35 Chambre fédérale des sociétés ouvrières de Paris, 15, 27 Champseix, André, 41, 44 Champseix, Léo, 41 Champseix, Léodile Béra, 41. See also Léo, André Champseix, Philippe Grégoire, 41 Chemalé, Félix-Eugène, 17, 19 Chirac, Auguste, 105, 127 Cipriani, Amilcare, 105 Le Citoyen, 82, 83 Le Citoyen dimanche, 80 Cladel, Léon, 105 Claris, Aristide, 44, 47 Clemenceau, Georges, 30, 80, 100 Club de l'art social, 105 Cohn, William, 86 Colaianni, Napoleon, 104 Cole, G. D. H., 63 Colins, Hippolyte: and collectivism, 20, 77, 150n.61 Collectivism, 19, 74; Malon and, 6, 14, 19-20, 59-61, 93-99, 105-6, 117, 120-23; French militants and, 16, 19-20, 69-70, 74-81, 82, 84, 99-100; in Italy, 53-56; Marxists and, 70, 72-73; Lafargue and, 89-93; Jaurès and, 139 Combault, Amédée, 22, 26, 35 Comité des vingt arrondissements (Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements), 24-28 Comité révolutionnaire central (CRC), 81 Commission du travail et de l'échange, 33-34 La Commune libre, 56 Comte, Auguste, 20, 59, 130, 132 Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de, 86 Constant, Benjamin, 109 La Coopération, 42 Cooperatism, 8-10, 26, 98-100; Malon and, 8-9, 36, 98-100, 120, 141; militant view of, 14, 15, 20, 36, 37; during the Paris Commune, 32, 33, 34, 36; Lassalle and, 63—65; Barberet and, 69-70; labor congresses and, 75-77, 99; Jaurès and, 139 Costa, Andrea, 53, 56, 104 Cournet, Frédéric Etienne, 30 Défenseurs de la République, 27 Degreef, Guillaume, 104

Index Delon, Albert, 104 Denis, Pierre, 32 De Paepe, César, 44, 59, 72, 96; collectivism of, 19,151n.63; and Le Socialisme progressif, 57; and La Revue socialiste, 104 Derfler, Leslie, 76 Dervillers, Prudent, 79, 82 Descaves, Lucien, 105 Deville, Gabriel, 1, 70, 72, 73 Deynaud, Simon, 82 Dimitrieff, Elisabeth, 72 Dreyfus affair, 2, 103, 116-17 Drouet, Jean-Baptiste, 77 Droz, Joseph, 61 Drumont, Edouard, 127-28 Diihring, Eugen, 94 Dumay, Jean-Baptiste, 79 Duruy, Victor, 109 Duval, Emile Victor, 16 Eclaireur, 41 L'Egalité, 42, 56, 71, 72-73, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81 L'Emancipation, 81-82, 83 L'Emancipation sociale, 102 Engels, Friedrich, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 93 L'Espérance, 41 Favre, François, 26, 31 Federalism, 5, 20; of Proudhon, 10, 14; of Malon, 20, 34, 37, 40, 44, 46-52, 54, 64, 76, 79, 80, 83-84, 96-97, 123, 141; of French militants, 20, 68-69; in the Jura Federation, 45; of Italians, 53 La Fédération, 79 Fédération des travailleurs socialistes (FTS), 77, 80, 168n.49. See also Parti ouvrier Fédération des travailleurs socialistes français (FTSF), 85 Fédération républicaine socialiste de la Seine, 102-3 Fédération romande, 45—48 Ferroul, Joseph, 85 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 94 Finet, Marie, 104 First French Empire, 8, 122 First French Republic, 8, 112 First International. See International Workingmen's Association Fourier, Charles, and Fourierists, 14, 49, 51 Fournière, Eugène, 77, 82, 142; career of, 82, 103; conflict with Guesdists, 83-85; on Malon, 94, 95, 136-137;

189

Index and La Revue socialiste, 101-6; on Boulanger, 113; on nationalism, 116; on Dreyfus, 117 Franco-Prussian War, 23-29, 68, 115 Frankel, Léo, 25, 33, 34, 72 Gambetta, Léon, 18, 23, 28 Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 28 Gerbier, P., 72 Girault, Jacques, 86 Government of National Defense, 2 3 - 2 7 Grave, Jean, 105 Grévy, Jules, 31 Grün, Karl, 94 Guesde, Jules, 2, 56, 136; as an antiauthoritarian, 44, 47, 48; and the introduction of Marxism, 70—74; and collectivism, 75-76, 92; and the Minimum Program, 75, 7 8 - 8 1 , 84; and factionalism of the early 1880s, 83-86 Guesdists, 113; and the introduction of Marxism, 70-74; and collectivism, 74-78; and the Minimum Program, 7 8 - 8 1 ; and factionalism of the early 1880s, 81-85, 102, 103; and reformism of the 1890s, 92, 135; and Malon, 94, 99. See also Marxism and Marxists Guillaume, James, 12-13, 20, 36, 44; and the Jura Federation, 45-50; break with Malon, 56, 162n.80 Haeckel, Ernst, 130 Hamet, Jules, 25 Harry, F., 82 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 71 Hegelianism, 3, 11, 71 Héligon, Jean-Pierre, 17 Herr, Lucien, 70 Hirsch, Karl, 72 Hostetter, Richard, 55 Hugo, Victor, 28 Hugues, Clovis, 83, 85, 113 International Workingmen's Association (IWMA), 1, 2, 10, 12, 53, 68, 72, 84, 97, 115; First Congress (Geneva, 1866), 14-15; Second Congress (Lausanne, 1867), 19; Third Congress (Brussels, 1868), 19-20; Fourth Congress (Basel, 1869), 19-20; Fifth Congress (The Hague, 1872), 4 9 - 5 0 ; Sixth Congress (Geneva, 1873), 49; early history and ideology in France, 14-16, 36, 69, 74; relationship with the Second

Empire, 16-23; during the Franco-Prussian War, 2 3 - 2 7 ; London General Council of, 24, 35, 4 4 - 5 2 , 53, 57, 67, 83; during the Paris Commune, 2 9 - 3 2 ; and the Fédération romande, 4 5 - 4 8 ; London Conference (1871), 47, 57; and the Jura Federation, 4 8 - 5 0 , 83; split in 1872, 4 9 - 5 0 , 83 L'Internationale, 22 L'Intransigeant, 81 Jaclard, Victor, 16, 30, 31 Jaurès, Jean, 1, 2, 3, 6, 70, 104, 105; Rouanet's relationship with, 102-3, 117; reformist socialism of, 136, 138-39 Joffrin, Jules, 83, 84, 103 Joukovsky, Nicholas, 46 Jura Federation, 35, 40, 45, 4 8 - 5 2 , 53, 54, 83 Jurat, 30 Kant, Immanuel, 71, 131 Kolakowski, Leszek, 86, 138 Kropotkin, Pierre, 48 Labor Congresses. See National Labor Congresses Labusquière, John Delille, 82 Lacombe, Paul, 42 Lacord, Emile, 29 Lafargue, Laura, 67, 71 Lafargue, Paul, 2, 67; Marxism of, 10, 16, 70-74; philosophy of, 20, 76, 86-93, 98; and Minimum Program, 78-79; and the POF, 85; Malon's views of, 85, 94, 97, 99; interpretations of, 86; and Boulanger, 113; on the family, 126 Langevin, Camille Pierre, 26 Lassalle, Ferdinand, 41, 62-65, 94, 95 Lefranc, Georges, 2, 99 Lefrançais, Gustave, 13, 28 Léo, André: and the Paris Commune, 26, 32, 40, 4 3 - 4 4 ; early life, 41-42, 157n.7; sociopolitical views, 41—45, 47, 125; relationship with Malon, 42-44, 52, 57 Lepelletier, Edmond, 27 Leroux, Pierre, 41, 51 le Roy, Achille, 79 Lévesque, Pierre-Charles, 109 Lichtheim, George, 74 Liebknecht, Wilhelm, 72, 124, 135 Ligue de la paix et de la liberté, 12, 18, 44

190 La Ligue des anti-patriots, 115 Lindenberg, Daniel, 74 Littré, Paul-Emile, 20 Locke, John, 86, 87 Lockroy, 30 Lombard, Jean, 79 London General Council of IWMA, 24, 35; conflict with the Jura Federation, 44, 52, 53, 57, 83 Longuet, Charles, 33, 71 Longuet, Jean, 102 Maitron, Jean, 140 Malatesta, Errico, 55 Malon, Benoît. See also Malon, Benoît: thought of; Malon, Benoît: works cited interpretations of, 1 - 2 family and early years, 7 - 8 as a worker in the Paris region, 8 - 9 on strikes, 9, 21-22, 152n.75 influence of Proudhon on, 10, 14, 32 influence of Bakunin on, 10-14 joins International, 10, 14-17 in prison, 17-18, 22-23 organizer for the International in the late 1860s, 18-19 on revolutionary tactics during the Second Empire, 20-23, 36 and the National Guard, 23, 2 9 - 3 1 during the siege of Paris, 2 4 - 2 7 as member of the Central Committee of the Twenty Arrondissements, 24-27 as adjunct mayor of Batignolles, 26-27, 2 9 - 3 1 as deputy to the National Assembly (1871), 27-29 as member of the Paris Commune, 32-36 as member of the Commission du travail et de l'échange, 3 3 - 3 4 as member of the "minority" within the Commune, 3 4 - 3 5 influence of the Paris Commune on, 36-38, 3 9 - 4 0 , 52, 133 in exile, 3 9 - 4 1 , 52-53, 133, 160nn.63, 64 as editor of Le Socialisme progressif, 40, 44, 56, 57-58 as editor of La Revue socialiste (first series, 1880), 40, 58, 71, 7 8 - 8 1 , 94 relationship with André Léo, 41-45, 52, 57 and the Fédération romande, 4 5 - 4 8 conflict with the London General

Index Council of the International, 4 5 - 5 0 , 57 and the Jura Federation, 4 8 - 5 0 , 53, 56-57 views of the International during the 1870s, 4 8 - 5 2 and the Hague Congress, 4 9 - 5 0 and the Saint-Imier International, 50-51 and Italian anarchists, 5 2 - 5 7 "experimentalism" of, 52, 5 5 - 5 7 and Italian socialists, 53, 5 5 - 5 7 on political economy and English economists, 58—61 and Lassalle, 62-66 and Lafargue, 7 8 - 8 1 , 85 and Guesde, 7 8 - 8 1 , 85 and die Minimum Program, 78—82, 106 returns to France (1880), 81 and Brousse, 81, 82, 8 3 - 8 5 as editor of L'Emancipation, 81-82, 169n.69 and the factionalism of the early 1880s, 81-86 and Marxism, 82-85, 93-100, 128, 133, 1 3 9 - 4 1 as editor of La Revue socialiste (second series, 1885-1893), 86, 101-5, 113, 126-128, 133, 136, 138 and republicanism, 108-11, 115 on the French Revolution, 111-12 and defense of the Third Republic, 113-17 and Boulanger, 113-14 sickness and death of, 135 funeral of, 135-36 monument for, 136 legacy of, 1 3 6 - 4 2 Malon, Benoit: thought of and reformism, 6, 9, 62—66, 83—85, 105-8, 119-33, 136-42 and collectivism, 6, 14, 19-20, 5 9 61, 9 3 - 9 9 , 105-6, 117, 120-23 and cooperatism, 8 - 9 , 32, 36, 98-100, 120, 141 on the family and the status of women, 15, 52, 99, 120, 123-24, 125-27, 180n.96 and federalism, 20, 34, 37, 40, 44, 4 6 - 5 2 , 54, 64, 76, 79, 80, 8 3 - 8 4 , 96-97, 123, 141 patriotism and nationalism of, 23, 32, 114-17 and anarchism, 4 5 - 4 6 , 5 0 - 5 7 , 62, 6 4 - 6 5 , 81, 124,133, 1 3 9 - 4 1

191

Index and determinism, 94-95, 99, 117-18 on social morals, 94, 99, 119, 128-33 defines integral socialism, 118-19 mature socioeconomic program of, 119-23, 133, 140 on agiotage, 121-22, 133 mature sociopolitical program of, 123-28, 133 and anti-Semitism, 127-28 and Social Darwinism, 129-30 on Judeo-Christian tradition, 130-31 Malon, Benoit: works cited "La Grève des mineurs" (1870), 23 La Troisième Défaite du prolétariat français (1872), 34-38, 39, 45 Exposé des écoles socialistes françaises (1872), 40, 51-52, 71, 93, 95 L'Internationale: Son histoire et ses principes (1872), 40 Spartacus (1873), 40 Socialisme, religione, famiglia, proprietà (1874), 40 Il Socialismo, suo passato, suo presente, suo avvenire (1875), 53 La Question sociale: Histoire critique de l'économie politique (1876), 18, 4 0 - 4 1 , 58-61, 128 Histoire du socialisme (1878), 2, 41, 61-62 translation of Albert Schaeffle's Quintessence du socialisme (1879), 41 translation of Ferdinand Lassalle's Capital et travail (1880), 41, 63 Le Nouveau Parti (1881-1882), 106, 107 L'Agiotage de 1715 à 1870 (1885), 180n.86 Le Socialisme réformiste (1885), 180n.94 La Morale sociale: Genèse et évolution de la morale (1885-1886), 128-31 Le Socialisme intégral (1890-1891), 97, 107, 117, 119, 131, 132 Lundis socialistes: Précis historique, théorique et pratique du socialisme (1892), 94, 97, 131, 132 Malon, Jean, 8 Malon, Jean-Marie, 7 Malthus, Thomas Robert, 58, 60, 63 Mangold, F., 25, 26 Marchand, Louis, 47 La Marmite (cooperative restaurant), 26

Marouck, Victor, 72 La Marseillaise, 21 Martignetti, 92 Marx, Karl, ix, 24, 35, 56, 61, 63, 65; influence in France, 3, 67—100; confrontations with Bakunin and antiauthoritarians, 11, 12, 44, 45, 49, 50, 57 Marxism and Marxists, x—xi, 2—3, 6, 10, 16, 53, 56, 57, 64, 65; and collectivism, 20, 74-78, 89-93; and the Hague Congress, 4 9 - 5 0 ; introduction in France, 67—74, 99-100; and the Minimum Program, 78-81; during the 1880s, 81-86; Malon on, 93-100, 128, 133, 139, 140; and Boulanger, 113. See also Guesde, Jules; Guesdists; Lafargue, Paul Massard, Emile, 72 May, Elie, 104, 105, 113 Melliet, Léo, 30 Mesa, José, 72 Michel, Louise, 105 Mill, John Stuart, 132 MUlerand, Alexandre, 102, 105, 116 Millière, Jean-Baptiste, 30 Minimum Program, 72, 73, 75, 78-81, 82, 83, 84, 103, 106 Mirabeau, 40 Mitterrand, François, ix, 6 Montesquieu, Charles-Louis, 3, 108, 109 More, Thomas, 95 Mottu, Jules-Alexandre, 30 Nabruzzi, Lodovico, 55 Napoleon 1, 121 Napoleon III, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24 Napoletano, Salvatore Ingegneros, 53 National Assembly (1871), 27-29, 30, 31 National Labor Congresses: First (Paris, 1876), 68-69; Second (Lyon, 1878), 69, 75; Third (Marseille, 1879), 69, 70, 73, 75-77, 97, 103; Fourth (Le Havre, 1880), 70, 80, 84; Fifth (Reims, 1881), 82-83, 84; Sixth (Saint-Etienne, 1882), 85, 102, 103 Nieuwenhuis, Domela, 104 Nouvelle revue socialiste, 102 Ostyn, 46, 48 Oudin, E., 72 Outine, Nicolas, 47 Paris Commune, 1, 2, 29-38, 39-40, 4 3 - 4 4 , 45, 52, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 112, 133, 141, 142

192 Partì ouvrier, 80, 81-85 Parti ouvrier français (POF), 74, 85 Parti ouvrier socialiste révolutionnaire, 85 Paul, Eden, 136 Paul, Saint, 131 Pecqueur, Constantin, 97, 105 Perrare, 48 Perron, Charles, 12, 46 Perrot, Michelle, 70 Le Peuple, 41 Peyron, Elie, 101 Pindy, Louis-Jean, 28, 29, 48 Pissaro, Camille, 105 La Plebe, 40, 53 Pohl, Otto, 136 Possibilists, 65, 73, 74, 8 4 - 8 5 , 102, 113. See also Brousse, Paul Il Povero, 40, 53, 56 Le Prolétaire, 56, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 102 Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph, 2, 5, 51, 63, 71, 93, 122, 124; doctrine, 10, 13-14; influence on militants during the late 1860s, 15-16, 20; influence during and after the Paris Commune, 32, 69, 70 Pyat, Félix, 28, 34 Ranc, Arthur, 28 Rebérioux, Madeleine, 135 Reclus, Elie, 42 Reclus, Elisée, 16, 42, 48 Reclus, Marthe Noémi, 42 Regnard, Albert, 127 Renard, Georges, 105, 136 Republicanism, x, 3 - 6 , 108-11, 115, 123-28, 133 La République des travailleurs, 26, 43 La République français, 44 La République républicaine, 48 Le Reveil international, 44 La Revendication (coopérative) 8—9 La Révolution politique et sociale, 32 La Révolution sociale, 40, 44, 47, 48 Revue sociale, 41 La Revue socialiste, 2; first sériés (1880), 40, 58, 71, 78, 79, 80, 81, 94; second sériés (1885-1914), 86, 101-5, 113, 126, 127, 128, 133, 136, 138 Ricardo, David, 58, 61, 63 Richard, Albert, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21 Robespierre, Maximilien Marie Isadore de, 4, 109 Roche, Ernest, 105 Rochefort, Henri, 21, 28, 81, 82

Index Rodbertus, Johann Karl, 63 Rodin, Auguste, 105 Rosny, 105 Rouanet, Gustave, 85, 138; career of, 102-3; and La Revue socialiste, 102-4; on Dreyfus, 117; on the family, 126; on Marxism, 166n.25 Rougerie, Jacques, 26 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, ix, 5, 90, 136; and republicanism, 4, 108-10 Rouzade, Léonie, 104 Rozoua, 47 Saint-Imier International, 4 9 - 5 1 . See also International Workingmen's Association Saint-Simon, Claude Henri, 16, 20, 124 Saint-Simonians, 5, 51 Say, Jean-Baptiste, 58, 59 Schaeffle, Albert, 41, 95 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 130, 132 Second French Empire, 1, 9, 10, 16, 21, 22, 2 3 - 3 4 , 64, 68, 69, 108, 121-22 Second French Republic, 9, 16, 32, 41, 112 Section de propagande et d'action révolutionnaire socialiste, 4 6 - 4 7 , 158n.33 Serraillier, Auguste, 33, 72 Shaw, George Bernard, 104 Le Siècle, 22, 42, 44 Silberner, Edmund, 127 Simon, Rodolphe, 101, 103 Sismondi, Jean Charles Léonard de, 61 Smith, Adam, 58, 59 La Sociale, 43 Le Socialisme progressif, 40, 44, 56, 57-58 Le Socialiste, 71, 73 Société d'économie sociale, 104—5 Société de la revendication des droits de la femme, 42 La Solidarité (mutual aid society), 26, 43 Soltau, Roger, 2 Sonvillier circular, 46, 47—48 Sorel, Georges, 2, 3, 70, 71 Spencer, Herbert, 130 State, ix-xi, 5 - 6 ; Bakunin's opposition to, 11-12; militant views of, 16, 68-69; collectivism and, 19-20; Malon and, 51-55, 61, 6 3 - 6 5 , 94-98, 106-7, 119-20, 122-25, 133, 140-42; Lassalle and, 6 3 - 6 5 ; Guesdists and, 73; Jaurès and, 139 Sternhell, Zeev, 1, 127

193

Index Theisz, Albert, 28, 33, 72 Thiers, Adolphe, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38 Third French Republic, 1, 2, 6,108, 112; early months of, 23-24; the French Left and, 67-68, 70, 75, 99-100, 112-13, 116-17; Malon and, 107, 113-17, 136-37; Jaurès and, 138 Tocqueville, Alexis de, 4, 107, 124, 142 Tolain, Henri, 14, 16, 17, 19, 30 Toussaint, J., 42 Le Travailleur de Geneva, 56 Tridon, Gustave, 28 Union républicaine, 27 Vaillant, Edouard, 2, 70, 71 Vaillant, René, 105 Vallès, Jules, 102 Varlet, J., 86 Varlin, Eugène: and the First International, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22;

during the siege of Paris, 24, 25, 26, 28; during the Paris Commune, 29, 30,31 Vidal, François, 97, 106 Villaseca, 103 Viviani, René, 102 Volney, C F., 109 Vuilleumier, Marc, 45 Waldeck-Rousseau, René, 116 Weitling, Wilhelm, 94 Willard, Claude, 86 Women and gender: republicanism and, 4; militants on, 15; Malon on, 15, 52, 99, 120, 123-24, 125-27; and the Paris Commune, 26, 34; André Léo on, 42—43; and the Minimum Program, 80 Zanardelli, Tito, 55