Communards vision of colonisation?

Hi guys,

I had a question: do you know what the Communards of 1871 thought of colonisation?

At this time, there were colonies in Algeria, Cochinchina, Africa, and bits and pieces everywhere.
Napoleon III had a plan to create an Arab Kingdom rather than fully integrate it into France as did the IIIrd Republic.

Do you know what their opinion was? In the very unlikely event they end up governing France after a staletmate (yeah, I know, ASB, not the point on how they do it here), do you know what their politics would be?

Cheers!
 
They planned to "integrate" them into the metropole. A good model of that is Central Asia, where Russia's Central Asian protectorates (virtually colonies) became republics with nominal political equality with the Russian SFSR.
 
They planned to "integrate" them into the metropole. A good model of that is Central Asia, where Russia's Central Asian protectorates (virtually colonies) became republics with nominal political equality with the Russian SFSR.
So making them citizens? Do we have any sources on the subject?
 
So making them citizens? Do we have any sources on the subject?

We have the example of the USSR integrating Central Asia. As for others, there is this.

In 1937, at the Aries Congress of the French Communist Party, Thorez summed up the colonial policy of the Party in the formula: ... The interests of the colonial people are in a union 'free, trusting and paternal' with democratic France. To forge this union, so it appeared in his eyes, was 'the mission of France all over the world.'

And I have no doubt the colonies would "choose" that path.
 
We have the example of the USSR integrating Central Asia. As for others, there is this.



And I have no doubt the colonies would "choose" that path.
Ah, I do know what the comnunists thought, but the actual Commune always struck me as more anarcho-communist (Proudhon style) than actual communists
 
Ah, I do know what the comnunists thought, but the actual Commune always struck me as more anarcho-communist (Proudhon style) than actual communists
Who knows how the situation developes in the said colonies and if the communards have even de facto power there.
 
They planned to "integrate" them into the metropole. A good model of that is Central Asia, where Russia's Central Asian protectorates (virtually colonies) became republics with nominal political equality with the Russian SFSR.

Communist France and colonies? That sounds a bit Stalinist.

I think we might be potentially confusing the post 1917 French Communist Party [PCF] and the 1871 Communards of the Paris Commune here.

Its important to remember that the Communards were firstly a mixture of ideologies and factions, ranging from those who adhered to specific thinkers like Blanqui and Proudhon, through more general ''socialists'' or ''radicals'', to those who were just workers caught up in the chaos of post-war and post-siege Paris. The short and chaotic lifespan of the Commune meant that they rarely articulated clear views on any subject, too concerned with at first trying to run their new utopia and latterly trying not to be killed. Whilst some radicals in mid-nineteenth century France had particular views on colonialism and the empire, the Commune never ASAIK from my research adopted anything like a policy.

Secondly, as other posters have pointed out, its highly unlikely that the Communards would have taken control of the French colonial empire if they did somehow seize control of the mother country. Most likely the colonies would have broken free [this was a period before much of the French settling of their Empire apart from the coastal strip of Algeria], been taken over by some sort of remnant conservative France, or been gobbled up by other colonial powers.
 
Secondly, as other posters have pointed out, its highly unlikely that the Communards would have taken control of the French colonial empire if they did somehow seize control of the mother country. Most likely the colonies would have broken free [this was a period before much of the French settling of their Empire apart from the coastal strip of Algeria], been taken over by some sort of remnant conservative France, or been gobbled up by other colonial powers.
That is a very interesting point, the colonies are not as mature and populated/frenchified as they would be later.
I can see Indochina go back to a Gia Long situation with the French forces present there allying with the Vietnamese state, as neither would be strong enough to dislodge the other.
Since there would be less rotation, you would generally see more mingling of soldiers and the population, as they'd stay there longer and couldn't go home.

Algeria would be a weird one: more populated, but also much closer and with a lot of European proletarians who could be sensitive to a victorious Commune in the Métropole.

I wonder if we'd see more Prussian intervention, like them trying to take Tonkin or Tunisia, or backing the colonial governments.
 
Secondly, as other posters have pointed out, its highly unlikely that the Communards would have taken control of the French colonial empire if they did somehow seize control of the mother country. Most likely the colonies would have broken free [this was a period before much of the French settling of their Empire apart from the coastal strip of Algeria], been taken over by some sort of remnant conservative France, or been gobbled up by other colonial powers.
Whether or not the colonies remain with a Communard France probably depends on: whether the Communards can hold the allegiance of the Marine Nationale/colonial troops/locally posted bureaucrats; and whether other colonial powers can accept a Communard France. The first question probably depends on how the Communards take power - such a scenario probably requires socialism/anarchism being much more popular, which would make a Communard military/bureaucracy more likely. The second question is more pessimistic - a Communard France will probably be in a 1792 style struggle for survival with the rest of Europe, and Britain/Germany/Italy would be happy to vacuum up France's colonies either for themselves or to hold onto till they can install a friendly government in Paris.

They planned to "integrate" them into the metropole. A good model of that is Central Asia, where Russia's Central Asian protectorates (virtually colonies) became republics with nominal political equality with the Russian SFSR.
Would the Communards give the colonies as much autonomy (or as much of an illusion of autonomy) as the USSR did? The Communards' rhetoric about a 'free and paternal union' seems (to me) maybe open to simply integrating the colonies as French departments a la Algeria, as opposed to Soviet-style federal/autonomous republics. Especially when you consider how undeveloped both the colonies and anti-colonial thought was at this time.

IMO if the Communards can manage to peacefully govern the French colonies, you could see anything from full integration and assimilation, to federal French-led pluralism, to state-directed colonial exploitation for the benefit of the French proletariat. It all depends on which variety of socialist you get leading the new government.
 
Since the Communards never controlled more the Paris, AFAIK, and since, as noted above, they were a wide ranging group, I suspect they didn't have a strategy for colonies.

IF they had gained power, which is highly unlikely, then they'd have to figure something out, but it could go SO many different ways.
 
Top