This is a bit of a doooozy, but this should fill us in on pretty much everything we need to know about France until the end of 1894, and this allows us to get back to Britain by just writing everything about France in one go. It's split into sections, so hopefully that helps!
V, LX: The Dream State - France under Auguste Keufer
Keufer on the front page of a pro-CGT Newspaper
Few in Europe knew, in 1893, where power actually lay in France. The emergence of the Federative Popular Union of the Francophones (Federative Union, or France) brought with it many institutions, groups, and factions vying for power. Still, until the new constitution had bedded in, it was unclear how the new constitution would work.
There was an executive, the Dictator Généralissme Georges Boulanger, a legislature, the Federative Congress, and a series of courts established. Despite this, the Dictator was enumerated with extensive powers, and the question arose of how the dictator, who overruled every other branch, would work with others, given his aloofness during his last period of power. A devolution of power was expected.
The expected devolution of power to the legislative and executive branches planned in the constitution put one man in the pathway of power - Auguste Keufer. The leader of the CGT faction of the Boulangists had done most to align himself with the legislative and executive branches, had been a key organiser of the labour unions during the revolution, and was genuinely popular among most of the working class.
Part 1 - From Typographer to Premier
Keufer was born into poverty in Alsace and was orphaned early in life before moving to Paris. His journey from a typographer to a leader was marked by his deep involvement in the labor movement. His leadership within the trade union movement, particularly in the French Federation of Book Workers (FFTL), positioned him as a prominent figure in the workers' struggle. His advocacy for mutual aid and solidarity, underpinned by his positivist beliefs, resonated with the workers he represented in the Third Republic as he took his first steps into political life.
Keufer's rise to prominence was catalyzed by the political upheavals following the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, which instilled in him a strong sense of national and class identity. His involvement in forming the Federative Popular Union of the Francophones (FPUF) further solidified his stature.
On May 1st, International Workers Day, Boulanger finally put the debate over governmental structure to bed when he issued the “Decree on Governmental Organization.”. This proclaimed that while ultimately all power would rest with Boulanger, the Federative Congress would be elected and an Executive Committee appointed, responsible to the Congress and the Dictator. Boulanger reserved some matters to his own administration, most notably internal and security, and foreign affairs, but in general, civilian government and economic affairs, otherwise known as bits of government Boulanger had found himself bored by during his last spell in charge, were given back to the new institutions of government.
When the election arrived for the Federative Congress in May 1893, around 800 members of the 1500-man body (both chambers had 750 members) aligned with the trade union movement: nominated by syndicates, workers cooperatives, or other associated movements.
Keufer's leadership within the Federative Congress was challenged by a multifaceted opposition characterized by diverse ideologies and strategic objectives. On one hand, the veterans, military commanders, and rightists within the Congress, though less ideologically cohesive, shared a common skepticism towards Keufer's labor-centric approach. Their apprehensions were rooted in a desire to maintain traditional power structures and a fear of radical social transformation. This group, often influenced by nationalist sentiments, sought to preserve France's historical identity and resist what they perceived as excessive democratization of the economy and society.
The nationalist faction, in particular, emerged as a formidable force under the leadership of figures like Charles Maurras and George Sorel. Their advocacy for an exclusive Actionist vision of France was in stark contrast to Keufer's inclusive and progressive policies. Maurras and his followers aimed to reshape the FPUF into a state that prioritized traditional values, strong centralized authority, and a clear French identity, often at the expense of minority groups and progressive ideals. This internal ideological battle within Congress and the government at large significantly shaped the political landscape Keufer navigated, creating a constant tension between revolutionary progressivism and conservative nationalism. Boulanger flittered between both sides, advocating patriotism but learning from his mistakes, keeping the working class on his side.
After the election, it was a nearly ubiquitous opinion among the candidates that Keufer would lead the Executive Committee of the Congress and, therefore, the executive government. Individual parties weren’t organised, or recognised, in the first election to the Congress. Still, a large number were members of the CGT, labour unions, or worker’s militias and held their loyalty to Keufer. The 42-year-old, the modern face of French politics, was nominated by the Congress on May 2nd, 1893, as Chairman of the Executive Committee and held considerable power within his hands upon appointment.
Part 2 - Reconstructing the Economy
Keufer’s tenure marked a period of significant domestic policy initiatives and reconstruction efforts aimed at healing a fractured nation and rebuilding its economic foundations. Keufer's leadership was characterized by a dual focus on national reconciliation and economic revitalization, underpinned by innovative strategies that sought to balance the diverse interests of a newly unified France under the Federative Popular Union of the Francophones (FPUF).
One of Keufer's first major policy initiatives was the nationalisation of emigré holdings. This bold move aimed to redistribute wealth more evenly across the nation and fund the massive reconstruction efforts required. The nationalization was not merely an economic measure but a symbolic act of reclaiming French assets for the benefit of all its citizens, particularly those who had suffered the most during the preceding conflicts. By redirecting these resources towards rebuilding the nation, Keufer sought to foster a sense of collective ownership and responsibility among the populace, laying the groundwork for a more equitable society.
The formation of the Fédération Interalliée Des Anciens Combattants (FIDAC) marked another cornerstone of Keufer's reconstruction strategy. Initially envisioned as a means to prevent the mass unemployment associated typically with the demobilization of soldiers and utilize their skills in the reconstruction process, FIDAC evolved into a more complex entity.
While it played a critical role in clearing rubble, repairing infrastructure, and revitalizing communities, over the course of its time, FIDAC transformed into a conservative and nationalist body under the influence of Charles Maurras' brand of Actionism. FIDAC’s ideology metamorphosis revealed the underlying tensions within the French polity. This shift underscored the challenges Keufer faced in balancing the demands and aspirations of various factions within the nation. The emergence of divisions between urban workers and rural veterans, particularly around the August reconstruction campaign, highlighted the difficulties in reconciling the diverse interests and visions for France's future.
Keufer's economic strategies were perhaps the most ambitious aspect of his leadership. The introduction of the FPUF “New Model” represented a radical departure from traditional economic practices. By creating worker-run cooperatives for each industry, managed through collective decision-making and represented by a body in the Council of Syndicates, Keufer aimed to democratize economic production and ensure that the benefits of labor were equitably shared. This model sought to empower workers and foster a sense of collective enterprise, challenging the hierarchical structures that had previously dominated French industry.
The Commission économique (Coméc) was established as the main planning and management body for the French economy, tasked with overseeing the transition to the new cooperative model. Coméc's role was crucial in coordinating the economic reconstruction of France, from the revitalization of industrial material production to the transformation of the agricultural sector. Under Keufer's guidance, Coméc implemented policies that returned the country to approximately 60% of its pre-war economic levels within 18 months—a remarkable achievement given the devastation wrought by the civil war.
The agricultural sector, in particular, underwent significant transformation. With 62% of French land cooperatively owned by December 1893, the shift towards collectivization was marked by both voluntary participation and coercion, as lands were seized from emigrés and deserting landowners. This period saw a fierce struggle for control between religious communes, aligning with conservative nationalist Comités and secular communes over the apportionment of land. These challenges would grow in the coming years as Gallocatholicism grew in France. Despite the challenges, the move towards collectivization represented a significant step towards realizing Keufer's vision of a society based on mutual aid and solidarity.
However, Keufer's strategies were not without their drawbacks. The emphasis on collectivization and nationalization alienated certain segments of the population, particularly among the rural peasantry, who found themselves caught between the ideological battles of religious and secular communes. Moreover, the rapid implementation of the FPUF “New Model” and the extensive powers granted to Coméc raised concerns about centralizing economic authority and the potential for bureaucratic overreach.
The economic and social impact of Keufer's ambitious FPUF “New Model” and nationalization efforts was profound and far-reaching. The nationalization of emigré holdings, while symbolizing a break from the past, faced criticism for potentially stifling individual enterprise and discouraging foreign investment. The redistribution of wealth, though beneficial for societal equity, raised questions about the long-term sustainability of the economy and the government's ability to efficiently manage these vast resources. Patronage played a part in this - Boulanger rewarded loyalty with appointments to some key positions across major industries and often used his role as dictator to shield some of the effects of the reforms on allies. Allowances for some private enterprises, combined with Keufer’s soft line on the press, meant individuals exerted significant influence on the media and funnelled their funds into groups like FIDAC, influencing them to take a more nationalist line.
The implementation of worker-run cooperatives marked a radical shift in the industrial landscape. While it empowered workers and promoted a sense of collective responsibility, it also encountered practical challenges. The transition to cooperative management required significant reorganization, training, and a cultural shift in work practices. Some industries adapted more successfully than others, leading to disparities in productivity and efficiency. Furthermore, the extensive powers granted to Coméc, though instrumental in coordinating economic activities, were critiqued for centralizing economic control, potentially leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies and a lack of responsiveness to local needs.
Agriculturally, the collectivization efforts saw mixed results. The initial increase in cooperative ownership of land was a significant achievement, but it was not without its difficulties. The struggle between religious communities, which formed communes around churches, and larger, secular communes in the orbit of towns and cities over land control reflected deeper societal divisions. In some regions, the transition to cooperative farming was met with resistance from traditional landowners and farmers accustomed to individual ownership. These divisions brought many sectors of agricultural society together into the Comités, as they felt through them, they had the best chance of survival. The balance between voluntary and coercive collectivization through the Comités and Keuferists remained a contentious issue, illustrating the complexity of implementing revolutionary ideals in a diverse and historically rooted agricultural sector.
Part 3 - Challenges to Keufer's Leadership
Auguste Keufer's tenure as the leader of the Federative Popular Union of the Francophones (FPUF) was marked by significant achievements in reconstructing and reorganizing France post-revolution. However, his leadership also faced formidable challenges that tested the resilience and unity of the new government. These challenges stemmed not only from the inherent difficulties of post-war reconstruction but also from deep internal divisions, the rising influence of nationalist ideologies, and diplomatic crises that threatened to undermine France's standing on the international stage.
One of the first major tests of Keufer's leadership came from within the movement itself, particularly concerning the policy on colonial holdings, known as the "territories" policy, implemented in June 1893. This policy was designed as an interim step towards the full integration of colonial territories into the FPUF, granting them a degree of local decision-making while retaining control of foreign policy at the Union level. The intention was to eventually extend citizenship rights to colonial citizens, a progressive move aimed at solidifying Francophone unity across the empire.
However, this policy quickly became a point of contention within the Federative Congress. Many members, even within Keufer's own supporters, fiercely opposed the idea of extending citizenship and autonomy to colonial territories. The opposition was not merely ideological but also reflected deeper anxieties about preserving French identity and the potential dilution of the metropolitan political and cultural dominance. Despite Keufer's efforts to rally support, the law faced a deadlock in Congress, leading Boulanger to issue a decree to pass the law unilaterally, highlighting a significant rift within the movement and casting doubt on the consensus-building capabilities of Keufer's leadership.
The internal divisions were further exacerbated by the rising influence of nationalist ideologies within the government. A pivotal moment came on July 31, 1893, when Charles Maurras, a fervent nationalist and advocate of an exclusive brand of Actionism, was appointed as Boulanger's personal secretary. This appointment signified a shift in the power dynamics within the FPUF, as Maurras wielded his position to push for policies that aligned with his nationalist and conservative agenda, often at odds with Keufer's more inclusive and progressive vision.
Maurras's influence rapidly extended beyond the confines of his official role as he became a key figure in rallying nationalist sentiments across the country. His appointment marked a clear departure from the initial principles of the revolution, steering the government towards a more authoritarian and exclusionary stance. This ideological shift not only undermined Keufer's authority but also signaled the growing chasm between the revolutionary ideals and the pragmatic realities of governing a nation in turmoil.
Part 4 - The Siege of Rouen
The most glaring manifestation of the challenges to Keufer's leadership, however, was the diplomatic disaster known as the Rouen Hostage Crisis. The lead-up to the crisis began with the strategic importance of Rouen, which had become a pivotal battleground in the ongoing conflict between the FPUF forces and the remaining Royalist strongholds. Royalists had established a corridor between Rouen and the coast, enabling the influx of supplies and reinforcements from sympathetic foreign powers, particularly Germany and Britain.
On May 18th, 1893, Boulanger ordered a siege to cut off Rouen from external support, which was executed with such efficiency that it inadvertently trapped foreign diplomats, including Americans, British, and German senior officials within the city, all of whom had fled when the city was overrun with rebels to safety. The Popular Army's decision not to release those diplomats led to widespread international condemnation and placed France in a precarious diplomatic position.
Joan of Arc Statue, Rouen. The Statue was destroyed during the Siege
As has been alluded to in previous chapters, The Popular Army was a skilled organisation, but not a well-disciplined one. Many were still hastily convened; structures were not yet totally formalised, and routinely, the different regional commands, which despite notionally having been abolished still operated on an ad-hoc basis. The Western Command drew heavily from Catholic areas, and armies in this command were more nationalistic, less inclined to syndicalism, and more religious. Scores of priests were among the cadre that travelled with the troops. For the men in this command, Actionism meant service to God and country. At Rouen, the final resting place of Joan of Arc, the presence of, to them, a foreign King was nothing short of the devil’s work.
A heroic “final push” was orchestrated through a mastery of the press. “Evidence” of the complicity in plots by the remaining bureaucrats and clerks left in Rouen whipped up hysteria, and thanks to a near worldwide blockade, outside information was scarce. It was easy to believe this was the case - it is exactly why the diplomats were there in the first place - but the remaining staff, although senior, were not decision-makers nor plotters. What remained of the battered Royal Army in Rouen, around 5,000 men gathered on leave in the town, of which 1,500 were gathered from a hospital, injured before the battle began. Despite this, the city was well stocked and had ammunition, so they were gathered and dug in on the banks of the Seine in the South and throughout a forest to the North of the City.
Most defended a perimeter of the city itself, with guard points, a hastily constructed wall, and, in one of the sadder ironies of the conflict, barricades in pathways led by enthusiastic civilians keen to defend a king. Another of the sad ironies was that the King was one of the last to escape through the grasp of the Popular Army, heading down the Seine to sail to Africa. France’s last King fled on a barge before hitching a ride with a merchant from the region, who made arrangements for the monarch to seek refuge in Equatoria - the small but rapidly growing settlement of ex-monarchs and their followers, led by Isabel, Countess of Girgenti, uncrowned Queen of Spain (in Equatoria, but that is a story for another time).
The Royalist Army fared well and defended the city resolutely, making it much harder than expected for the Actionists. Expected to last around two days, the siege went on for weeks. The Popular Army resorted to artillery, cannon fire, and attempting to start fires in Rouen to smoke the Royalists out. To their credit, they wouldn’t budge. The two sides ravaged it out for weeks on end, with the situation in the city getting worse and worse.
General Ferdinand Foch, senior official in the Popular Army
General Foch, in charge of the operation, routinely disregarded the opinions of the Executive Committee, especially Keufer, to reduce the damage to the city and to prevent unnecessary loss of life. Foch agreed with the notions of Keufer, but the passion of their troops towards the city, and the fragile and fluid times they lived in made Foch believe he had to continue with the assault for fear of mutiny among these hyper-motivated Popular Army. They threw everything at the Royalists, who defended with absolute steel. A recipe for large-scale loss of human life. Adding to the energy of the troops, Boulanger visited Rouen four times in the first month of the operation, each without Keufer’s knowledge. Each time, he encouraged the fight and said, “Spare no effort to liberate the last vestiges of monarchy!”
Keufer, who had been sidelined in the decision-making process leading to the siege, found himself powerless to the decisions of the Army and felt emasculated not only abroad but at home. The public, whipped in revolutionary fever, cheered on the Popular Army. Chants of “Kill the traitors and their allies” and “Death to the Germans” became commonplace as patriotism swelled through the country once again. The euphoria of victory, combined with nationalism and the fragility and hyper state of the Popular Army at the height of its powers, made France a dangerous place to be insufficiently French during the crisis.
While guillotines weren’t erected, the Popular Army’s military police and auxiliary units continued covert operations. While the situation in cities was calmer, as the National Guard generally patrolled the streets, in the countryside, and in newly acquired territory, the Popular Army cracked down on dissent. Much of the country, almost all of it under the control of the Popular Army, had exceedingly low turnout rates due to the fear of reprisal and repression. In these areas, the Comité, a group allowing individuals to show their loyalty to the regime, and FIDAC, the organisation responsible for representing veterans with strong links to the Popular Army, were the only way out from repression.
The Siege of Rouen would eventually last three months. Around 15,000 were killed in the city; it was reduced to ashes by constant artillery and only fell when the last battalion standing, a group of bankers and their clerks given rifles by the remaining Generals of the sinking Royalist Army, were wiped out when a Popular Army unit burned out their last stronghold, a local bank. The town’s remaining 12,000 or so were herded into train cars. Under pressure from international actors, including Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, and facing pressure from Keufer and the Congress, Boulanger finally ordered the release of the diplomats. However, the damage to France’s image was enormous. The handling of the Rouen Hostage Crisis exposed the fragility of the new government's international standing and, for Keufer, highlighted the limitations of his control over the military and foreign policy decisions.
After the battle was declared won, Keufer regained the upper hand. The Federative Congress’ Defense Committee, at Keufer’s covert request, conducted a full investigation into the failures of Rouen, which had cost thousands of lives and millions of Francs and resulted in nothing more than a few trains full of prisoners the state was sure to release.
Foch was earnest about the failings in a private debrief and was willing to file a full report. Still, before the hearings could begin, a group of nationalists in the Congress persuaded Boulanger to intervene. No hearings would be held. Keufer, learning the game of power in the new France, arranged a fake robbery with one of his staff, leading to the files being “released” to the Paris press. Among the more respectable classes and the working class in the city alike, public pressure forced Boulanger to act, and two other senior officers from the Western Command were dismissed. Foch, thanks to Keufer’s intervention, was saved. In the West, the move was taken as a punishment for doing their duty to France - Keufer attracted severe criticism from the Comités. Abroad, Keufer’s reputation as a statesman was enhanced.
Part 5 - The Belgian Crisis
Keufer's approach to foreign policy was characterized by a nuanced understanding of the geopolitical dynamics that had isolated France. Recognizing the importance of re-establishing France as a responsible member of the international community, Keufer embarked on a series of diplomatic overtures aimed at softening the image of the FPUF and dispelling fears of revolutionary exportation. His strategy was two-pronged: internally, it involved tempering the radical elements within the government that pushed for aggressive expansionism; externally, it focused on engaging in dialogue and building bridges with European powers, many of which were wary of the revolutionary government in Paris.
The Belgian Crisis of August 1893, coming fresh from the Siege of Rouen, which had finished a week prior, presented a critical test of this diplomatic strategy. The crisis erupted when French-speaking trade unions in Wallonia, inspired by the revolutionary fervor emanating from France, initiated protests demanding the unification of French-speaking Belgian areas with the FPUF. The situation quickly escalated into a general strike, posing a direct challenge to the stability of the region and threatening to draw France into a direct confrontation with Belgium.
A careful balancing act marked Keufer's response to the crisis. While nationalist factions within the government saw an opportunity to expand France's territorial reach, Keufer understood the broader implications of such aggression. He sought to distance the FPUF from the unrest, publicly denying any plans to annex Belgian territory and emphasizing France's desire for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. This stance, however, was complicated by covert actions taken by elements within the military, who, without Keufer's knowledge, funneled weapons and support to the rebels.
Despite these challenges, Keufer managed to maintain a facade of diplomatic restraint, engaging in unofficial contacts with representatives from Britain and the Netherlands. These efforts underscored his commitment to a diplomatic solution and highlighted the complexities of navigating internal divisions within the government while managing external perceptions of the FPUF.
Un soir de grève (1893) by Eugène Laermans
Still, forces within the country demanded action on the matter, and some began to hark for a return to a larger, stronger France, akin to French Revolutionary times. On the left and the right, the issue of France’s ‘natural borders’ once again began to creep into conversation. Ultraradical Syndico-Actionists on the left wanted to spread the worker's revolution; on the right, the march of the Francophone, as promised by Boulanger, would begin in Brussels. Holding the centre wasn’t easy, but Keufer, for the most part, managed to keep the Federative Union out of the war. That didn’t mean that these groups were fuelling the conflict, but it did mean that the upper echelons of the Executive Committee weren’t directly complicit. Beginning to understand the situation, one British diplomat who met Keufer said, “he is the only nanny in a room full of infants.”
Throughout the early Belgian Crisis, Keufer reemerged from the diplomatic wilderness and found the potential for a seat at the Great Power table once again available for France. A growing cadre around Boulanger wanted to undercut that effort and plunge France into yet more conflict. By October 1893, Belgium looked to have calmed, but large-scale protests continued, and it wouldn’t be the last time countries discussed Belgium in the coming years. Keufer had emerged on the foreign policy stage with credit, and the civilian government in France was looking serious.
Part 6 - Lobbying the Brighton Conference
Perhaps the most significant of Keufer's foreign policy initiatives was his lobbying of the Brighton Conference in September. This international gathering of European powers, including the Accord Powers and new additions, Russia and Austria, represented an opportunity for France to argue for its recognition and the normalization of international relations. Keufer understood the importance of presenting the FPUF as a legitimate and stable government capable of constructive engagement in the international system.
In preparation for the conference, Keufer orchestrated a comprehensive campaign to lobby for France's inclusion in future diplomatic discussions. He leveraged the presence of Russia and Austria at the conference, nations with which France had shared complex relationships, to advocate for a broader understanding of the FPUF's goals and the mutual benefits of cooperation. Keufer's efforts culminated in a speech, cabled to the conference, in which he called for peace among European powers and cooperation to revive the global economy.
The lobbying campaign was a testament to Keufer's diplomatic acumen. While Germany remained fiercely opposed to any concessions to France, Keufer's overtures found a more receptive audience in Britain and Spain. The British, under Prime Minister Salisbury, were open to the idea of meetings to explore the scope of future relations, indicating a softening of their stance towards the FPUF. Spain, impressed by Keufer's diplomatic efforts, began to warm to the idea of improved bilateral relations.
The foreign policy initiatives and diplomatic maneuvers of Auguste Keufer during his leadership of France were instrumental in beginning the process of reintegrating the country into the European community. Through a combination of strategic restraint, careful diplomacy, and proactive engagement, Keufer managed to mitigate some of the international fallout from the revolutionary period. Through these efforts, Keufer's tenure is remembered as a crucial, if ultimately fruitless, period of reorientation in French foreign policy, highlighting the complex interplay between domestic politics and international diplomacy in the aftermath of the revolution.
Part 7 - The World Figure
During this tumultuous period, Auguste Keufer's leadership of the Federative Popular Union of the Francophones in these early years after the revolution stands as a compelling study of the complexities inherent in reconciling revolutionary ideals with the pragmatic demands of governance and international diplomacy. Keufer's tenure was a period of significant transition, marked by efforts to reconstruct a nation ravaged by conflict and to redefine its place within the international order. By analyzing Keufer's policies, challenges, and foreign policy initiatives, we can illuminate the intricate dynamics of leading a revolutionary state through a period of profound transformation to try and understand what comes next.
A visionary approach to economic reconstruction and societal reorganization characterized Keufer's leadership. His efforts to redistribute wealth through the nationalization of emigré holdings, the establishment of the Fédération Interalliée Des Anciens Combattants (FIDAC), and the implementation of the FPUF “New Model” were ambitious attempts to lay the foundations for a more equitable and cooperative society. These initiatives, while groundbreaking, were not without their challenges. The transformation of FIDAC into a conservative and nationalist entity, the internal divisions sparked by the "territories" policy, and the ascent of nationalist ideologies under the influence of figures like Charles Maurras underscored the tension between revolutionary aspirations and the realities of power.
The Rouen Hostage Crisis epitomized the limitations of Keufer's control over military and foreign affairs, revealing the constraints on his leadership and the fragility of France's international standing. Yet, in the realm of foreign policy, Keufer demonstrated a remarkable capacity for strategic diplomacy. His efforts to mend relations with neighboring countries, navigate the complexities of the Belgian Crisis, and lobby the Brighton Conference for recognition highlighted his commitment to restoring France's dignity on the world stage. The softening of relations with Britain and Spain, in particular, underscored the potential for constructive engagement and the reintegration of France into the European community.
However, the challenges Keufer faced—from internal divisions and ideological rifts to diplomatic crises—underscore the inherent difficulties of steering a revolutionary government toward stability and legitimacy. The ideological battles within the FPUF, the pushback against progressive policies, and the tensions between revolutionary zeal and diplomatic pragmatism presented obstacles that Keufer navigated with varying degrees of success. The seeds of Keufer’s downfall and its implications on the politics of the world are sown in these initial weeks and months. Keufer presented the ‘positive’ side of Actionism to the world and was able, therefore, to excuse himself of the horrors that were to follow and establish himself and his ideology as a counter-culture to the prevailing moods in France.
Over the course of 1893, the global press warmed to Keufer. The reasonable face of the regime, his policies, and his governmental program had a large-scale influence on global socialist thought. Progressives around the world looked with intrigue at the Federative Union, seeing a different economic model in practice was a fascinating experiment. The Worker’s International even allowed Keufer’s ministers and advisors to speak at events, and research and studies on the New Model exploded in the winter of 1893. The managerial aspect, especially the establishment of Coméc, furthered Keufer’s reputation among the left worldwide.
This link between the French and various socialist groups would also bring about a red scare of sorts - arrests in Germany, Italy, and the Balkan Realm shot up as paranoid nations rounded up trade union leaders and leftists. In Britain, the freshness of the March Massacres served to calm nerves over a fifth column, but the middle classes feared the philosophy after the horrors of the Siege of Rouen. The influx of refugees soured the feelings of towards Boulanger and Keufer in some areas, notably England, which took the vast majority. In northern cities, concepts and ideas were circling among workers, and economic debates fascinated academia. The SDF conference and SPD conference both adopted some form of the New Model to their programme in 1894. It seemed for a time that Actionism could have united the worker's movement.
Finally, Engels issued his opinion on the matter in January 1894 with his
Comparisons of the Zorrilla & Keufer Program, which said: “The programme of economic reform and structuring in the New Model, while not definitive, represent development in the stages of economic development towards the classless society and Communism.”
Meeting in Paris of pro-Keufer Worker's International members, who would later form the Communist Party of Italy
Keufer's leadership during this critical period in French history represents a nuanced case study in the art of political leadership in times of upheaval. His tenure illuminates the challenges of reconciling the ideals of revolution with the exigencies of statecraft, balancing internal demands with external pressures, and forging a new identity for a nation reborn through revolution. While Keufer's efforts to reconstruct France and reposition it within the international order were met with mixed outcomes, his tenure remains a testament to the complexities of post-revolutionary governance and the enduring struggle to realize the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the face of profound political and social transformation. Keufer emerged from the period as an ideological figure, the eventual father of the Communist Party of France.