Restructuring the State Political System from the Perspective of Society

Any writing of the history of socialism cannot avoid a major historical transformation — the Paris Commune of 1871. The commune regime, which existed for only 72 days, not only left a precious political legacy for the world socialist movement but also provided valuable historical experience for the development of Marxist theory. Marx and his theoretical followers viewed the commune event from the level of the state. The International Workingmen’s Association, represented by Marx, gave high praise to the Paris Commune, calling it the “glorious forerunner of a new society.” In Marx’s view, the commune was the definite form of the “social republic” that would replace class rule, the reappropriation of state power by the social organism. From the decrees and actions of the commune he extracted a set of “commune institutions,” which Engels further interpreted — the Paris Commune was not “the state in the original sense of the word” but “the dictatorship of the proletariat” — thereby laying the theoretical foundation for the subsequent practice of the “commune state.” Under the continued elaboration of Engels, Lenin, and others, the Paris Commune came to be regarded as the embryonic form of the socialist state power. With the spread of Marxism, the commune giving birth to a new type of state has become the classic thesis concerning the Paris Commune.

社会主义史的书写，无法回避一场重大的历史变革——1871年的巴黎公社。短暂存在72天的公社政权，不仅为世界社会主义运动留下珍贵的政治遗产，也为马克思主义理论的发展提供了宝贵的历史经验。马克思及其理论追随者是从国家层面看待公社事件的。以马克思为代表的国际工人协会，对巴黎公社给予高度评价，称其为“新社会的光辉先驱”。在马克思看来，公社是取代阶级统治的“社会共和国”（social republic）的明确形式，是社会机体对国家权力的重新收回，他从公社的法令和行动中提炼出一套“公社体制”，经由恩格斯进一步解释——巴黎公社不是“原来意义上的国家”而是“无产阶级专政”，从而为之后“公社国家”的实践奠定理论基础。在恩格斯以及列宁等人的继续阐发下，巴黎公社被视为社会主义国家政权的雏形。随着马克思主义的传播，公社孕生新型国家，业已成为关于巴黎公社的经典论断。

However, as the antithesis of the Marxist narrative of the commune, a “non-state” image of the commune has always existed. The three most representative types of views are: the theory of a local rebellion splitting the state, the theory of municipal autonomy under the state, and the anarchist theory opposing the state. The first type of view originated from the collusion of the “Party of Order” in the Versailles camp; for example, the Versailles government, in its *Parliamentary Inquiry into the Insurrection of March 18*, referred to the commune event as a “terrible rebellion” that subverted order. The second type of view was the common perception of the “Republican” faction seeking reconciliation during the Franco-Prussian War; for instance, the mediating Republican Union for the Rights of Paris advocated promoting commune autonomy under the premise of national unity, arguing that the Paris Commune was an expression of municipal freedom. The third type of view came from anarchists who followed Bakunin; Bakunin demanded the complete abolition of all forms of state and declared that the Paris Commune was “a bold, clear negation of the state.” It can be seen that, apart from Marx’s thesis, the Paris Commune was invariably labeled with a “non-state” image.

然而，作为马克思主义公社叙事的对立面，“非国家”的公社形象一直存在。分裂国家的地方叛乱说、国家之下的市政自治说和反对国家的无政府说是较有代表性的三类观点。第一类观点源自凡尔赛阵营中“秩序党”的共谋，如凡尔赛政府在《关于3月18日叛乱的议会调查》中，以颠覆秩序的“可怕叛乱”指称公社事件。第二类观点是法兰西内战期间寻求和解的“共和派”的普遍认知，如居中调停的巴黎权利共和联盟主张在国家统一的前提下推进公社自治，认为巴黎公社是市政自由的表达。第三类观点则出自信奉巴枯宁的无政府主义者，巴枯宁要求彻底废除一切形式的国家，宣称巴黎公社“是对国家的大胆、明确的否定”。可见，在马克思的论断之外，巴黎公社皆被冠以“非国家”的形象。

The debate between “state” and “non-state” indicates that the image of the Paris Commune is pluralistic. At the centenary of the commune revolution, French academic circles had a heated discussion on this. Jean Bruhat discussed the pluralistic interpretations of the commune by the Versailles government and the commune’s supporters. He argued that the commune was a complex event; magnifying the examination reveals its different and even contradictory components, and that the fragmentation, rejection, or neglect of the event is a necessary condition for the production of legends. Michel Winock believed that the commune was viewed, narrated, and used in multiple ways. Besides the various parties who participated in or witnessed the revolution, later communists, liberals, the old left and the new left, Catholics, and the right wing also selectively borrowed from the commune. Georges Haupt emphasized that the Paris Commune was both a symbolic sign and a model example; it had taken root in the collective memory. The extension of the commune’s theory, thought, and spirit constitutes the second part of its own history. Interpreting the commune cannot confine the production of legends to the ideological sphere; it also requires delving into the collective mentality of radical groups. This type of analysis from the perspective of cultural symbols aims to show that the historical facts and discourses of the commune cannot be observed in isolation, but it also pushes the image of the Paris Commune into a field of contention.

“国家”与“非国家”之争，表明巴黎公社的形象是多元的。公社革命百年纪念之时，法国学界对此有过热议。布鲁哈特（Jean Bruhat）讨论了凡尔赛政府和公社支持者对公社的多元化解释，他认为公社是一个复杂事件，放大检视就会发现其中的不同乃至矛盾的成分，对事件的肢解、拒绝或忽视是传说产生的必要条件。维诺克（Michel Winock）认为，公社被多元观看、多重叙述和多样使用，除参与或目击这场革命的各方外，事件之后的共产主义者、自由主义者、老左派和新左派、天主教徒以及右翼，也在选择性地借用公社。豪普特（Georges Haupt）则强调，巴黎公社既是一个象征符号，也是一种样例典范，它已扎根于集体记忆中，公社的理论、思想、精神的延伸，构成它自身历史的第二部分，解释公社不能把传说的生产局限于意识形态领域，还需要深入激进人群的集体心态。此类文化符号视角的分析，意在说明公社的史实与言说不能被割裂观察，但同时也将巴黎公社的形象推向论争场域。

How can we return to the examination of facts and re-evaluate this struggle over images? Historical restoration based on the cognition of the communards themselves is a feasible path. Compared with the suppressors, mediators, and onlookers, the communards were not only the witnesses of the commune event but also the founders of the commune cause. They are the subjects of the commune, and their collective consciousness and joint action can be regarded as the commune’s self-performance. Considering the extremely vast number of documents left by the communards, this article selects only the highly authoritative official bulletins and meeting records of the commune as the primary firsthand sources for citation. These two types of texts centrally record a large number of speeches and various activities of the communards during the commune period. In addition, this article also draws on memoirs written by communards after the commune’s defeat as supplementary materials to explore whether the communards’ views on the Paris Commune changed. Relying on these historical documents, this article attempts to reconstruct the appearance of the commune as seen by the communards, hoping to resolve the debate over the state and non-state images of the commune from the perspective of the subjects, and thereby reveal the deeper ideas contained in the Paris Commune.

如何回到事实之辨，重新审视这场形象之争？基于社员的认知进行历史还原，不失为一条可行之路。较之于镇压者、调停者、围观者，社员不仅是公社事件的亲历者，更是公社事业的建立者，他们即公社的主体，其集体意识与共同行动可视作公社的自我展演。考虑到社员留下的相关文献极其繁多，本文仅选取权威性较高的公社官方公报和会议记录，作为征引的主要一手资料，这两份文本集中记载了公社时期社员的大量言论与各种活动；此外，本文还援引公社失败之后社员的回忆录作为补充资料，探究社员对巴黎公社的看法是否发生过转变。依托这些历史文献，本文尝试复现社员眼中的公社样貌，以期从主体视角破解关于公社形象的国家与非国家之争，进而揭示巴黎公社所蕴含的深层理念。

I. Transcending Municipal Affairs: Laying the Foundation for the “Republic”

一、超越市政：为“共和国”奠基

The term “commune” (commune) held multiple meanings for the people of Paris in 1871. The medieval urban communes in French history, the Paris Commune of 1792, and the utopian experimental communes of the mid-19th century provided them with different examples for understanding the “commune.” Simply viewing the 1871 commune as a pursuit of local autonomy is a misinterpretation; “commune” itself implies autonomy, and the Paris Commune did not stop at this demand. The communards’ ideal of laying the foundation for the republic transcended municipal autonomy; they sought to establish a social republic starting from the commune.

“公社”（commune）之于1871年的巴黎民众具有多重意涵。法国历史上的中世纪城市公社、1792年巴黎公社、19世纪中叶空想实验公社等，为他们认知“公社”提供了不同实例。将1871年的公社简单地视为追求地方自治，实乃一种误读，“公社”本身就意味着自治，而巴黎公社并未止步于这一诉求。社员为共和国奠基的理想超越了市政自治，他们寻求从公社出发建立一个社会共和国。

(I) Discussing the Commune at the State Level

（一）国家层面谈公社

The Parisian “insurgents” (insurgé) of 1871 discussed the commune at the state level. Flipping through the many newspapers published in Paris during the commune period, one frequently encounters two words: “Commune” (Commune) and “Republic” (République). These two words are striking because they mostly appear in capital letters and are often placed at the end of articles, using the slogan-like expression “Vive la……!” (Long live……!). The special marking of “Commune” and “Republic” indicates that these two words carry some special meaning, and their use in association conveys that the commune is synonymous with the republic. The official newspaper of the Paris Commune retained the original name *Journal Officiel de la République Française* (Official Journal of the French Republic), which contains the word “Republic,” indirectly showing that the commune did not consider itself a simple local authority. After the uprising of March 18, the first announcements of the Central Committee of the National Guard published in this newspaper also mentioned the “Republic” several times in a tone of praise, welcome, and defense. Shortly after the commune was established, an article in the official bulletin, discussing the form of republic desired by the people of Paris, declared: “The Republic is the Commune.” It is evident that the communards discussed this revolution from the state level, not limiting it to urban autonomy.

1871年的巴黎“起义者”（insurgé）是在国家层面谈论公社的。翻阅公社时期巴黎发行的诸多报刊，会频繁地遇见两个语词：“公社”（Commune）与“共和国”（République）。这两个词之所以引人注目，是因为它们多以大写的形式出现，且常被置于文章结尾处、采用“Vive la……！”（……万岁！）的口号式表达。对“公社”和“共和国”的特殊标示，表明这两个词具有某种特别意义，而将它们关联使用，又传达出公社即共和国的同义词。巴黎公社的官方报刊保留了原《法兰西共和国公报》的名称，其中就含有“共和国”一词，这从侧面表明公社没有将自己简单地当作地方政权。3月18日起义发生后，该报刊登的国民自卫军中央委员会的首批公告里，也以赞美、欢迎、维护的姿态数次提及“共和国”。公社成立后不久，公报中的一篇文章谈及巴黎人民所希冀的共和国样式时，宣称：“共和国就是公社”。可见，公社社员是从国家层面谈论这场革命，而不是仅限于城市自治。

The statements of the communards confirm this belief that the commune attempted to lay the foundation for the state. In the propaganda for organizing the commune elections, a notice issued by the communards stated that Paris enjoyed the right to autonomy, the central government was responsible for national affairs, and the realization of autonomy for the capital Paris was a necessary condition for the establishment of the French Republic. Another election proclamation pointed out that the people of Paris had obtained full sovereignty, and the people should, through elections, establish a commune for their city to guarantee their own rights, thereby setting an example for other cities of the Republic. According to this conception, the Paris Commune was not opposed to the central administrative organs; it would serve as a model for the Republic while safeguarding the rights of both Paris and the nation. At the inauguration ceremony of the commune councilors, the communard Charles Beslay declared: “The liberation of the Paris Commune is the liberation of all the communes of the Republic.” In this Republic composed of a federation of communes, each group would obtain full independence and freedom of action.

社员的言论印证了公社试图为国家奠基这一信念。在组织公社选举的宣传中，社员发布的通知声明：巴黎享有自治的权利，中央政府负责全国性事务，首都巴黎实现自治是法兰西共和国建立的必要条件。另一份选举布告指出，巴黎人民取得了全部主权，人民应通过选举为自己的城市建立公社以保证自身权利，从而为共和国其他城市做出表率。照此设想，巴黎公社不与中央行政机构对立，它将作为共和国的表率，同时维护巴黎和国家的权利。在公社委员的就职仪式上，社员沙尔·贝雷（Beslay）宣称：“巴黎公社的解放，就是共和国所有公社的解放”。在这个由公社联合组成的共和国中，每个集团都将获得充分的独立和行动自由。

The *Appeal to the French People*, which served as the political program of the Commune, also proclaimed that the Commune aimed to consolidate the Republic. The program expressed the goal of Paris as: “to recognize and consolidate the Republic,” and understood the Republic as “the only form of government that can enable the people to enjoy their rights and allow society to obtain freedom and healthy development.” It declared the absolute autonomy of Paris within municipal affairs, while hoping that this autonomy could be extended throughout the country, with the communes voluntarily uniting on an equal basis into a unified republic. Ordinary people in the Commune also expressed the Commune’s republican vision. Désiré Florentin Lapie, a member of the National Guard, believed that the people of Paris wanted to establish “an indivisible Republic,” a Republic that would promote the separation of church and state without hindering freedom of conscience, provide free compulsory education in secular schools, abolish the standing army, and establish a National Guard. Lapie’s description of the Republic was basically consistent with the republican ideal depicted in the Commune’s official gazette, confirming from another angle the prevalence of the idea that the Commune was the Republic at that time.

作为公社政治纲领的《告法国人民书》，也宣告公社旨在巩固共和国。纲领将巴黎的目的表述为：“承认并巩固共和国”，并把共和国理解为“唯一能使人民享受权利，使社会得到自由和健康发展的政府形式”。它宣称巴黎在市政范围内的绝对自主权，同时希望这种自主权能够推广至全国，各公社在平等的基础上自愿联合为统一的共和国。公社中普通民众也表达了公社的共和愿景。国民自卫军成员德西雷·弗洛伦丁·拉皮（Désiré Florentin Lapie）认为，巴黎人想建立的是“一个不可分割的共和国”，这个共和国在不妨碍良心自由的情况下推行政教分离，为世俗学校提供免费义务教育，废除常备军、建立国民自卫军。拉皮对共和国的表述，与公社公报中描绘的共和理想基本一致，从另一个侧面印证公社即共和国在当时观念中的盛行。

Different from the bourgeois republic, the “Republic” demanded by the Communards was prefixed with multiple modifiers. The terms used for “Republic” in contemporary newspapers and periodicals were varied and numerous, with frequently appearing expressions including: “the true Republic,” “the democratic, unified and indivisible Republic,” “the democratic, social and unified Republic,” “the world Republic,” “the democratic social Republic,” “the unified and indivisible, democratic and social Republic,” “the social democratic Republic,” “the Republic of workers,” “the communal Republic,” “the democratic, social and world Republic,” and “the universal social Republic.” Apart from “unified and indivisible,” which maintained the expression of sovereign integrity, other adjectives modifying “Republic”—“democratic,” “social,” “world,” etc.—directly conveyed that the Commune sought to establish a republic belonging to the people. The extensive terminology concerning the “Republic” indicates that establishing and consolidating the Republic was the basic consensus of the Commune revolution. For ease of expression, “social republic” is used here to refer to the Commune’s republican vision.

与资产阶级共和国相异，社员吁求的“共和国”前置了多个修饰词。同期报刊中关于“共和国”的用语杂多不一，经常出现的表述包括：“真正的共和国”“民主的、统一的和不可分割的共和国”“民主的、社会的和统一的共和国”“世界共和国”“民主的社会共和国”“统一而不可分割的、民主的和社会的共和国”“社会民主共和国”和“劳动者的共和国”“公社式的共和国”“民主的、社会的和世界的共和国”“全世界社会共和国”等。除“统一而不可分割的”维护主权完整的表述，其它点缀“共和国”的形容词——“民主的”“社会的”“世界的”等，直接传达出公社寻求建立一个属于人民的共和国。关于“共和国”的大量用语表明，建立与巩固共和国是公社革命的基本共识。为便于表述，这里采用“社会共和国”指代公社的共和愿景。

(II) The Social Dimension of the Commune

（二）公社的社会向度

The slogan “social republic” can be traced back to 1848. After the July Monarchy was overthrown, various classes in France endowed the newly established Republic with different content: the bourgeois republicans advocated establishing a “bourgeois republic,” the petty-bourgeois democrats proposed a “democratic republic,” and the proletariat demanded a “social republic.” There were two understandings surrounding the “social republic”: one did not touch upon changes in ownership but appealed to the organization of labor and the guarantee of the right to work to address social issues; the other sought to transform private ownership of the means of production into public ownership, achieving the proletariat’s seizure of power through revolution. In 1848, the Parisian workers’ understanding of the “social republic” still fell within the category of a bourgeois democratic republic, primarily used to solve workers’ livelihood problems rather than issues of political power construction. The Republic demanded by the Paris Commune in 1871 added new meanings on this basis, with its “social” dimension reflected in the Communards’ decrees and actions. This can be specifically divided into three aspects:

“社会共和国”作为口号出现可以追溯到1848年。七月王朝被推翻后，法国各阶级赋予新成立的共和国以不同内容，资产阶级共和派主张建立“资产阶级共和国”，小资产阶级民主派提出建立“民主共和国”，无产阶级要求建立“社会共和国”。围绕“社会共和国”存在两种理解：一是不触及所有制变革，诉诸组织劳动和保障劳动权来回应社会问题；二是变生产资料私有制为公有制，通过革命来实现无产阶级掌握政权。1848年巴黎工人对“社会共和国”的认知仍属于资产阶级民主共和国的范畴，主要用于解决工人的生计问题而不是政权建设问题。1871年巴黎公社所诉求的共和国，在此基础上添入了新的意涵，其“社会”向度体现在社员的法令和行动中。具体可分为三个方面：

First, the secular dimension of removing religion. This secular dimension was mainly manifested in the clearing away of ecclesiastical influence. The decree on the separation of church and state showed the Communards’ overall attitude toward religion. The decree held that freedom was the primary principle of the Republic, and freedom of belief was the most important of all freedoms; the religious budget that taxed citizens’ beliefs was contrary to this. Therefore, the Commune decided to implement the separation of church and state, abolish the religious budget, and nationalize religious property. Secularized educational reform was another measure to eliminate ecclesiastical influence. Led by the Commune’s Delegate for Education, Edouard Vaillant, the Education Commission sought to remove church interference in schools and establish a secular education system. The educational reform document they submitted, *Opinions of the New Education Society*, pointed out that the Commune was creating a “republican education,” that is, adopting experimental or scientific teaching methods and promoting comprehensive, free, and compulsory secular education. Using this as a blueprint, Vaillant signed an education decree requiring the removal of religious education from Parisian schools: “In many schools, religious education still exists in the form of crosses, images of the Virgin Mary, and other symbols. Teachers must ensure that these objects disappear, because their existence violates freedom of conscience. Objects made of precious metals will be inventoried and sent to the mint.” In addition, the Commune issued other decrees related to religion, such as demolishing the Bréa Chapel and renaming its site Place de Juin, and abolishing political oaths and professional oaths.

其一，去除宗教的世俗面向。这种世俗面向主要表现为对教会影响的廓清。政教分离法令表明社员对宗教的整体态度，该法令认为自由是共和国的首要原则，信仰自由是一切自由中最重要的，对公民信仰课税的宗教预算与之相悖，因此，公社决定实行教会与国家分离，取消宗教预算，将宗教财产收归国有。世俗化的教育改革是消除教会影响的另一举措，由公社教育代表爱德华·瓦扬（Edouard Vaillant）领导教育委员会，力图去除教会对学校的干涉，并建立世俗教育体系。他们提交的教育改革文件《新教育学会的意见书》指出，公社创办的是一种“共和制教育”，即采用实验的或科学的教学方法，推行全面的、免费的、义务的世俗教育。瓦扬以此为蓝本签署了一项教育法令，其中要求巴黎的学校去除宗教教育：“在许多学校，宗教教育仍然以十字架、圣母像和其他符号的形式存在。教师必须确保这些物品消失，因为它们的存在侵犯了心灵自由。由贵金属制成的这类物品将被清点并送到铸币厂”。除此之外，公社还颁布了其它与宗教相关的法令，如拆除布雷阿将军教堂并改名为六月广场，废除政治宣誓和职业宣誓等。

Second, the democratic orientation opposing autocracy. On the one hand, the Commune set about destroying the tools and symbols of autocratic rule; on the other hand, it attempted to strengthen the construction of democratic institutions on the basis of universal suffrage. The Commune not only abolished the standing army and police, which were the material forces of the Empire, replacing them with the National Guard and the Commune’s administrative organs, but also demolished the symbol of the Empire, the Vendôme Column, thoroughly eliminating autocratic rule and its culture. The people under the Commune also acted spontaneously, burning the guillotine. In terms of democratic institution-building, the Commune implemented universal suffrage, with the people of each district of Paris electing Commune councilors through elections, thereby ensuring that they were representatives from among the people and familiar with the people; for the elected Commune councilors, the Commune granted the people the power of supervision and recall, allowing them to replace incompetent public officials at any time, preventing them from degenerating from public servants into masters of the people; the Commune also set a maximum salary for public officials, ensuring that their wages did not exceed the annual salary of an ordinary Parisian worker, in order to truly realize a “cheap government.” In addition, the democracy of the Commune was also manifested in the participation of mass organizations in public affairs. Numerous, diverse, and widely covered mass organizations were active in various public places such as the city hall, district offices, streets, squares, and public meeting halls. Most Commune councilors also came from mass organizations. After becoming councilors, they often returned to the various neighborhoods to attend meetings. Each councilor participated in one or several of these organizations. On the one hand, they brought the opinions of mass organizations into the Commune Council; on the other hand, they transmitted the resolutions and decrees from the city hall to the various neighborhoods. The whole of Paris operated actively within this complex social network.

其二，反对专制的民主朝向。公社一面着手摧毁专制统治的工具及其象征，一面尝试在普选的基础上加强民主制度的建设。公社不仅废除了作为帝国物质力量的常备军和警察，代之以国民自卫军和公社的行政机构，还拆除了帝国的象征物旺多姆纪念柱，对专制制度及其文化予以全面清除。公社治下的民众也自发行动起来，焚毁断头台。在民主制度构建上，公社推行普选制，由巴黎各区民众通过选举产生公社委员，从而保证他们是出自人民、熟悉人民的代表；对于当选的公社委员，公社赋予民众监督权和罢免权，可随时更换不称职的公职人员，防止他们由人民公仆蜕化为人民主人；公社对公职人员的最高薪金待遇也进行了限定，确保其工资不超过巴黎普通工人的年薪，以真正实现“廉价政府”。此外，公社的民主还表现为群众团体对公共事务的参与，数量众多、形式多样、覆盖广泛的群众组织，活跃于市政厅、区政府、街道、广场和公共会议厅等各类公共场所。多数公社委员也出自群众组织，他们在担任委员后也经常回到各街区参加集会，每个委员都会参与其中某个或数个组织，他们一面将群众组织的意见带进公社委员会，一面又将市政厅里的决议和法令传递到各个街区，整个巴黎在这张复杂的社交网中积极运转。

Third, the egalitarian orientation of restraining capital. The Commune’s restraint of capital was concentrated in its economic decrees, which addressed issues such as rent, pawnshops, the disposal of workshops abandoned by employers, payment deadlines, housing requisition, night work in bakeries, and bread prices. These decrees both prohibited employers from arbitrarily fining and excessively exploiting workers and encouraged workers to freely associate in production under public ownership of the means of production, while also alleviating to a certain extent the debt problems of the Parisian middle class, preventing the creation of large disparities between employers and workers, within the working class, and between the working class and the middle class. The joint actions of workers in various industries expressed this orientation toward economic equality even more clearly. For example, a notice from the union of stone polishers and cutters emphasized that workers were the creators of wealth; workers should unite to stop the endless greed of idlers and bosses who exploited workers in difficult circumstances. A statement of principles from a meeting of the Machinists’ Union and the Metallurgical Workers’ Association, conveyed to the Commune, declared that “equality” under the Commune was not an empty phrase; its purpose was “economic emancipation,” which could only be achieved “by uniting all workers.” The workers demanded “the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the last form of slavery,” and “the organization of labor through jointly responsible cooperation, relying on collective and inalienable funds.” The Federation of Paris Sections of the International Workingmen’s Association also proclaimed in its notice that Paris had won the emancipation of the workers. To ensure this emancipation, the workers demanded: “the organization of credit, exchange, and cooperation, to guarantee that workers can obtain the full value of their labor.” Judging from the proclamations of the various workers’ associations, the formation of trade associations by workers united to achieve economic emancipation was an important demand during the Commune period.

其三，节制资本的平等取向。公社对于资本的节制集中反映在它的经济法令中，相关法令涉及房租、典当、企业主遗弃工场的处置、付款期限、住房征用、面包房夜班、面包售价等多个问题。这些法令既禁止雇主对工人的随意罚款和过度剥削，也鼓励劳动者在生产资料公有制下自由联合生产，同时一定程度化解了巴黎中等阶级的债务问题，避免在雇主和工人之间、工人阶级内部以及工人阶级和中等阶级之间制造较大的贫富悬殊。各行业工人的联合行动更加清晰地表达了这一经济平等的取向，如石头打磨工和切割工工会的一份布告强调，工人才是创造财富的人，对于游手好闲之人和利用困境剥削工人的老板，工人们要联合起来，制止他们的无穷贪欲；机械工人工会和冶金工人协会会议向公社传达的一份原则指示声明，公社治下的“平等”不是空洞的字眼，其目的是“在经济上获得解放”，而这“只有把全体劳动者联合起来”才能实现，工人们要求“废除人剥削人这一奴隶制的最后形式”，“依靠集体和不可剥夺的资金，通过共同负责的合作方式组织劳动”；国际工人协会巴黎支部联合会在其告示中也宣称，巴黎赢得了工人的解放，为了使解放得到保障，工人们要求：“组织信贷、交换和协作，以保证工人能获得他们的劳动的全部价值”。从各工人协会的文告来看，工人联合成立行业协会以获得经济解放，是公社时期的重要诉求。

From the three dimensions discussed above, the Paris Commune was the realization of the social republic. As Marx once commented: “The social republic was introduced in the February Revolution as a phrase, as a prophecy.” It initially appeared only as a vague intention to replace class rule itself, while the Paris Commune of 1871 was the definite form of the social republic.

从上述三个向度来看，巴黎公社是社会共和国的现实化。正如马克思曾评论说：“社会共和国在二月革命开始的时候是作为一个词句、作为一个预言出现的。”它仅表现为一种取代阶级统治本身的模糊意向，而1871年的巴黎公社则是社会共和国的明确形式。

II. Between Autonomous Association and the Paris Dictatorship

二、在自治联合与巴黎专政之间

In the eyes of the Paris insurgents, the establishment of the “Republic” signified the liberation of society. Facing the power vacuum left by Thiers’ government fleeing the capital, the Parisian populace spontaneously mobilized, forming numerous autonomous associations that maintained Paris’s daily operations through cooperation. Autonomous association was universally recognized by the Communards as the strategy for liberation, and the Commune’s initial organizational structure was built on this foundation. As the Versailles army steadily approached, improving the Commune’s operational efficiency became an urgent issue. The Commune’s Executive Commission carried out reforms around this issue, and after reorganization, the Committee of Public Safety was established, meaning that the bottom-up strategy of association was connected to a top-down plan of dictatorship. The Commune’s shift from autonomous association to centralized dictatorship was concretely manifested in the question of the boundaries of the Executive Commission’s powers.

在巴黎起义者看来，“共和国”的建立意味着社会的解放。面对梯也尔政府逃离首都后留下的权力真空，巴黎民众自发行动起来，组建大量自治性质的团体，以联合的方式维持着巴黎的日常运转。自治联合作为解放的方略得到社员的一致认可，公社最初的组织架构便是以此为基。由于凡尔赛军队的不断逼近，提升公社的运行效率成为迫切议题，公社执行委员会围绕这一议题进行改革，改组后成立了社会拯救委员会，意味着自下而上的联合方略接入了自上而下的专政方案。公社从自治联合向集权专政的转变，具体表现在执行委员会的权界问题上。

(I) The Evolution of the Boundaries of the Commune’s Executive Commission

（一）公社执行委员会权界的演变

The process of establishing, reorganizing, and replacing the Commune’s Executive Commission reveals changes in the Commune’s internal structure. The day after the Commune was founded, the Commune Assembly passed a plan for a power organization based on ten commissions. The Commune established an Executive Commission and nine commissions responsible for specialized affairs. The Executive Commission held administrative power and was responsible for executing the Commune’s decrees and the resolutions of each commission. It was composed of Commune councilors, with a one-month term. Like the other commissions, it had no chairperson or single representative and practiced collective responsibility. This system encountered difficulties in practice. First, there was the relationship between the Executive Commission and the other nine commissions. The ten commissions were equal in organizational rank, but according to their functional design, the other commissions were subordinate to the Executive Commission in a “deliberative–executive” relationship. Being both equal and subordinate created a logical contradiction. Second, there was the problem of communication and coordination between the Executive Commission and the other commissions. The “resolution–execution” link between them lacked a mechanism to ensure connection. No commission or the Executive Commission had a dedicated representative to handle specific affairs, resulting in resolutions being difficult to implement and a situation of “nine heads on one body.”

公社执行委员会的设立、改组和更置的过程，显示出公社内在结构的变动。公社成立次日，公社大会通过十委员会制的权力组织方案。公社下设执行委员会和九个分管专项事务的委员会，执行委员会掌握行政权，负责执行公社的法令和各委员会的决议，它由名公社委员组成，任期一个月，它与各委员会一样，不设委员长或单一代表，实行集体负责制。这套制度在实践运转中遇到难题，首先是执行委员会与其它九个委员会之间的关系问题，十个委员会在组织级别上是平等关系，但根据职能设定，其它委员会与执行委员会是“议事—行政”的从属关系，既平等又从属构成了逻辑矛盾；其次是执行委员会与其它委员会之间的沟通协调问题，二者之间的“决议—执行”没有衔接保障机制，各委员会和执行委员会均无专门代表对接专项事务，造成议而难行、“九头一身”的局面。

To change this situation, Commune councilors proposed several reform plans. Louis Charles Delescluze’s reorganization proposal was passed at the Commune session on April 20. According to the proposal, the Commune’s administrative power was temporarily entrusted to the representatives of the nine commissions. The nine representatives were appointed by the Commune by a majority vote. The representatives met daily and made decisions concerning each department by majority vote. The representatives reported to the Commune daily, and the Commune gave final approval to their decisions. Under this design, the nine representatives elected by the Commune formed the Executive Commission, with each representative in charge of one specialized commission. Within each commission, a representative responsibility system was implemented, and the membership of each commission was reduced to five to improve deliberative efficiency. This reorganization strengthened the Commune’s centralization. The Executive Commission gained powers second only to the Commune Assembly. It was no longer on an equal footing with the other nine commissions, and coordination and communication between them were ensured by the addition of representatives from the nine commissions. Thus, the logic of the Commune’s power operation became increasingly clear: after the Commune Assembly elected the nine representatives and the members of each commission, it delegated power to the Executive Commission. The nine commissions first held their own meetings for deliberation (meetings of the specialized commissions), after which the representatives of the nine commissions held meetings for deliberation (meetings of the Executive Commission), and finally, the Commune made the resolutions.

为改变这种局面，公社委员提出多套改变方案。德勒克吕兹（Louis Charles Delescluze）的改组提案在4月20日的公社会议上获得通过。根据提案，公社的行政权暂时委托于九个委员会的代表行使，九名代表由公社以多数票通过任命，代表每天集会并以多数通过的方式做出有关各部的决定，代表每天向公社汇报工作并由公社最终批准其所作决定。依照此番设计，公社选出的九名代表组成执行委员会，每名代表分管一个专门委员会，而各委员会内部实行代表负责制，同时将各委员会成员缩减至五人，以提高议事效率。这次改组强化了公社的中央集权，执行委员会取得了仅次于公社大会的权能，它与其它九个委员会不再是平级关系，它们之间的协调沟通也由于九委员会代表的增设得到了保证。由此，公社的权力运转逻辑愈发清晰：公社大会选举九名代表和各委员会委员后，将权力委托给执行委员会，九委员会先行各自集会议事（各专门委员会会议），之后九委员会的代表再进行集会议事（执行委员会会议），最后交由公社作出决议。

Due to the critical military situation, a motion was raised within the Commune to establish a Committee of Public Safety to strengthen centralization. At the Commune session on April 28, Jules Miot proposed establishing a Committee of Public Safety to deal with the state of emergency facing the Commune. According to the proposal, the Committee of Public Safety was to be composed of five members, each individually voted on by the Commune. It not only replaced the previous powers of the Executive Commission but also enjoyed the broadest powers over the other nine specialized commissions. Compared with the reorganized Executive Commission, the Committee of Public Safety should be seen as an emergency measure under exceptional circumstances—dictatorship. It inserted a leadership body that concentrated power into the original democratic structure, using centralization to compensate for the defects of democratic deliberation. By virtue of the broad powers granted by the Commune, the Committee of Public Safety absorbed all the powers of the Executive Commission. The representatives of the Executive Commission stationed in the other nine commissions had their original powers revoked and retreated into the specialized commissions, functioning only as representatives of those commissions. The specialized commissions no longer input their collective resolutions into the Executive Commission through their representatives but passively received the decisions and orders issued by the Committee of Public Safety. The Executive Commission and the Committee of Public Safety were two different sets of logical arrangements rooted in the same democratic foundation. The former still involved checks and balances and interaction between two levels of electoral democracy, while the latter was elevated to a decision-making body, positioned above the specialized commissions. The Commune councilors who lived through this experience could especially feel this marked change.

由于战事吃紧，公社内部动议成立社会拯救委员会以强化集权。4月28日公社会议上，米奥（Jules Miot）提议设立社会拯救委员会，以应对公社面临的危急状态。根据提案，社会拯救委员会由公社逐一表决出的5名委员组成，它不仅取代之前执行委员会的职权，并且对其它九个专门委员会享有最广泛的权力。与改组后的执行委员会相比，社会拯救委员会应被看作例外状态下的应急举措——专政，它在原有的民主架构上，接入了一个聚合权力的领导机构，以集权弥补民主协商的缺陷。凭借公社赋予的广泛权力，社会拯救委员会囊括了执行委员会的全部权力，执行委员会派驻其它九个委员会代表解除了原有权力，退居到各专门委员会中，仅作为专门委员会代表履行职责；各专门委员会也不再是通过代表将委员会的集体决议输入执行委员会，而是被动接受社会拯救委员会下达的决定和命令。执行委员会和社会拯救委员会是植根于同一民主基础上的两套不同的逻辑安排，前者尚有两次选举民主之间的制衡与互动，后者则跃升为决断机构，位居各专门委员会之上。处身其中的公社委员，尤能感受到这种明显的变化。

(II) The Committee of Public Safety and Dictatorship

（二）社会拯救委员会与专政

The establishment of the Committee of Public Safety directly caused the Commune Council to split into a majority and a minority. Twenty-five Commune councilors refused to participate in the nomination of the Committee of Public Safety and submitted a declaration of abstention: “This committee will make people forget the serious principles of social reform upheld by the Commune revolution of March 18.” Because they were not numerically dominant, they were commonly called the minority in the Commune, while those who supported the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety were called the majority. The minority and majority in the Commune were not tightly organized political groups; they were groups of opinion that coalesced and split around the issue of the Committee of Public Safety. To understand their direct disagreement, it is first necessary to clarify what the “Committee of Public Safety” was. Consulting the records of the Commune sessions on April 28, April 30, and May 1, it can be found that the term “Committee of Public Safety” was highly correlated with the word “dictatorship” (dictature). Both the councilors who favored establishing this body and those who were apprehensive about the name and refused to accept it repeatedly spoke of “dictatorship.”

社会拯救委员会的成立，直接造成公社委员会分裂为多数派和少数派。25名公社委员拒绝参加社会拯救委员会的提名，并提交弃权声明：“这个委员会将使人忘却3月18日公社革命所奉行的严肃的社会改革原则”。因为人数不占优势，他们通常被称为公社中的少数派，与之相对的则是支持成立社会拯救委员会的多数派。公社中的少数派和多数派并非严密的政治组织，他们是围绕社会拯救委员会议题分化聚合而成的观念团体。要理解他们之间的直接分歧，首先需要明晰“社会拯救委员会”为何物。查阅4月28日、4月30日和5月1日的公社会议记录，可以发现，“社会拯救委员会”与“专政”（dictature）一词高度相关。无论是赞成设立该机构的委员，还是对此名称感到疑惧并拒绝接纳它的委员，皆多次谈及“专政”。

For example, the reasons for opposing the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety:

如反对成立社会拯救委员会的理由：

“Apart from the dictatorship of the Commune itself, I do not approve of another dictatorship within the Commune… I oppose a dictatorship by a committee of three, five, or nine people.”

“除公社本身的专政外，我不赞成公社还有另外一种专政……我反对由三个人、五个人或九个人组成的委员会来专政。”

“Behind the Committee of Public Safety is hidden a dictatorship.”

“社会拯救委员会的背后隐藏着专政。”

“Given the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety, its main result will be to form a dictatorial organ, which in no way contributes to increasing the Commune’s strength.”

“鉴于社会拯救委员会的设立，其主要的结果将形成一个专政机关，这丝毫无助于公社力量的增加”，

“The establishment of any dictatorial organ by the Commune is a true usurpation of popular sovereignty…”

“公社成立任何专政机关，都是对人民主权的真正篡夺……”

Again, for example, the reasons for supporting the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety:

再如支持成立社会拯救委员会的理由：

“I advocate for a dictatorship by three councilors, not by five.”

“我主张由三位委员，而不是由五位委员来实行专政。”

“If some kind of dictatorship could indeed lead us to victory, I might accept it.”

“如果某种专政确实能够把我们引向胜利，我也许就会接受它的。”

“‘The Committee of Public Safety’ will not be a dangerous dictatorial organ, because it is supervised by the Commune.”

“‘社会拯救委员会’不会是一个危险的专政机关，因为它受公社的监督。”

In the eyes of the various factions of Commune councilors, the Committee of Public Safety was all a dictatorial organ, and establishing it meant implementing dictatorship. The difference lay in how the Commune councilors viewed the act of dictatorship. On this issue, the Commune councilors displayed three attitudes: the Committee of Public Safety was a revival of the terror of dictatorship from the Great Revolution; the Committee of Public Safety was a method of centralization borrowing the memory of the Great Revolution; the Committee of Public Safety was different from the dictatorial organs of the Great Revolution and was a new measure to concentrate the Commune’s strength. These three roughly corresponded to the tendencies of the Proudhonists, the Neo-Jacobins, and the Blanquists on this issue.

在各派公社委员眼中，社会拯救委员会皆是一个专政机关，成立社会拯救委员会意味着实行专政。差别在于，公社委员如何看待专政这一行为。公社委员在此问题上表现出三种态度：社会拯救委员会是对大革命中专政恐怖的复活；社会拯救委员会是借用大革命记忆的集权方式；社会拯救委员会不同于大革命中的专政机关，是集中公社力量的新举措。三者大致对应着蒲鲁东派（Proudhonists）、新雅各宾派（Neo-Jacobins）、布朗基派（Blanquists）在此问题上的倾向。

The Proudhonists were the main force of the minority faction; they rejected any form of dictatorship, especially the terroristic dictatorship of the Great Revolution. The Neo-Jacobins and most Blanquists constituted the majority faction; both favored dictatorship. The former carried a heavy memory of the Great Revolution and were infatuated with the names of old things, while the latter regarded dictatorship as a necessary transitional stage of social revolution and were not fixated on revolutionary memories or the names of things. Their understanding of establishing a Committee of Public Safety was essentially a concretization of their overall view of the Commune. This split revealed the Communards’ differing perceptions of the “Commune” and at the same time inscribed two different images onto the Commune: one was top-down vanguard decision-making, the other was bottom-up grassroots democracy. The majority faction advocated the former, the minority faction sketched out the latter. Because the Commune existed only briefly, the proposals of neither faction were able to extend beyond Paris. In this respect, the Paris Commune only displayed a certain potential in building a new state political system.

蒲鲁东主义者是少数派的主体力量，他们拒斥任何形式的专政，尤其是大革命中的恐怖式专政；新雅各宾主义者和大部分布朗基主义者构成了多数派，他们都赞成专政，前者带有浓重的大革命记忆，迷恋旧事物的名称，后者则把专政当作社会革命必经的过渡阶段，并不执着于革命记忆和事物名称。他们对成立社会拯救委员会的认知，实质是他们对公社总体看法的具化。这场分裂显示出社员对“公社”的差异认知，同时也给公社刻写了两面不同的形象，一面是自上而下的先锋决断，一面是自下而上的草根民主，多数派力主前者，少数派擘画后者。由于公社的短暂存在，二派主张都未能越出巴黎之外。就此而言，巴黎公社在建设新的国家政制方面仅展现出某种潜能。

III. The State Form of the Transitional Period

三、过渡阶段的国家形态

In the view of the majority faction, the critical situation in Paris required dictatorship to turn it around. Although the Neo-Jacobins and the Blanquists understood dictatorship somewhat differently, their intention in advocating dictatorship was not to oppose democracy but to promote it. In other words, for the majority faction, dictatorship had a distinctly transitional character. Clarifying this requires tracing back to the Jacobinism of the Great Revolution.

在多数派看来，巴黎的危急形势需要专政来扭转。虽然新雅各宾派和布朗基派对专政的理解有所差异，但他们推崇专政的本意不是反对民主，而是为了催动民主，换言之，专政在多数派那里具有明显的过渡特征。澄清这一点，需要回溯大革命时期的雅各宾主义。

(1) The Neo-Jacobin Club-Type Commune

（一）新雅各宾主义的俱乐部式公社

Jacobinism was the completed form of the “society of thought” (société de pensée) that emerged in the second half of the 18th century, with the club as one of its common organizational forms. Unlike interest groups formed from real-life experience, a “society of thought” only relates to ideas; it is built on the foundation of the abstract equality of individuals, produces a consensus through discussion among its members, and propagandizes and defends this consensus. To put it bluntly, it is “a tool for manufacturing uniform public opinion.”[5]5 The author is quoting or paraphrasing a characterization of the “society of thought” as a mechanism for manufacturing uniform public opinion, a concept associated with the work of French historian Augustin Cochin. What the “society of thought” displayed was “pure democracy” without leaders or representatives, taking the “public consensus” produced through equal debate as its highest principle. The Jacobin clubs, which manufactured and disseminated public consensus, relied on the intellectual power they held to win popular support, gradually moving toward political power and becoming the spokespersons of democracy. However, faced with the planned distribution required by material scarcity and the concentration of power required to suppress reactionary forces, “pure democracy” had to turn to the “dictatorship” that was effective under a state of emergency.

雅各宾主义是18世纪下半叶兴起的“思想社会”（société de pensée）的完成形态，俱乐部是其常见的一种组织形式。与从现实经历中形成的利益团体不同，“思想社会”只同观念发生关系，它建立在个人抽象平等的基础之上，基于成员的讨论得出一种共识，并对这一共识进行宣传和捍卫，直白来说，它是“一部用于制造一致舆论的工具”。“思想社会”展现出来的是没有首领和代表的“纯粹民主”，它以经过平等辩论而产生的“社会公论”为最高原则，而制造和传播公论的雅各宾派俱乐部，凭借其握有的知识权力得到民众的拥护，逐渐迈向政治权力，成为民主的代言人。但是，面对物资匮乏要求的计划分配以及打压反动势力要求的权力集中，“纯粹民主”不得不转向紧急状态下行之有效的“专政”。

The Neo-Jacobins revered the Jacobin leaders of the Great Revolution. They also defined themselves as representatives of the people, starting from the people’s direct needs and developing as circumstances changed. From the declaration of war in early July 1870 to the suppression of the Commune at the end of May 1871, the Neo-Jacobins were initially patriotic, later republican, and sometimes socialist. They adopted flexible and realistic tactics, distinguishing between the demands of an emergency and the possibilities offered by an ideal society, even at the cost of sacrificing ideological consistency. For the Neo-Jacobins, the Commune meant a thorough social and political transformation, a way for patriots to take France back from Prussia and Versailles. Similar communes should be established throughout France, employing coercive measures distinct from terrorism, as determined by the need to sustain the revolution. The Committee of Public Safety was the necessary institution for implementing this process: it was first used to defend the revolution, then to transform the political structure, and finally to replace the bourgeois state with people’s democracy.

新雅各宾派崇敬大革命时期的雅各宾派领导人，他们也把自己定义为人民的代表，从人民的直接需要出发，并随环境变化而发展。从1870年7月初宣战至1871年5月底公社被镇压，新雅各宾派起初是爱国主义的，后来是共和主义的，有时也是社会主义的，他们采取灵活现实的策略，区分了紧急情况下的要求和理想社会所提供的可能性，甚至不惜牺牲意识形态一致性。于新雅各宾派而言，公社意味着一场彻底的社会和政治变革，是使爱国者从普鲁士和凡尔赛那里夺回法国的方式，应该在法国各地建立类似的公社，采用区别于恐怖主义的强制手段是由维持革命所决定的，社会拯救委员会乃实施这一进程所必需的机构，它首先用于捍卫革命，之后是改造政治结构，最后再以人民民主取代资产阶级的国家。

This leads to the Neo-Jacobins’ attitude toward “dictatorship.” The Neo-Jacobins denied that the dictatorial means of seizing and holding power would harm the future development of the revolution. When revolutionary means are used to reject formal democracy in order to establish people’s democracy, there is no incompatibility between the democratic goal and dictatorial means, especially when this tactic is chosen by the people’s organization. Their goal was to incorporate popular spontaneity into the revolutionary plan, to organize and guide this spontaneous behavior rather than stifle it. As a minority acting as the revolutionary vanguard, the Neo-Jacobins not only had to lead the revolution but also to provide political education to the people, while establishing institutions that would enable them to participate effectively and further advance the movement. They emphasized the transitional nature of dictatorship: dictatorship would continue until domestic and foreign enemies were eliminated, until the majority, especially the rural masses, became “new people.” Forging citizens of the republic who embodied new values was a main thread running through the Jacobin tradition.

由此引出新雅各宾派对“专政”的态度。新雅各宾派否认夺取和掌握权力的专政手段会损害革命的未来发展，当为了建立人民民主而用革命手段拒绝形式民主时，民主目标和专政手段之间就不存在不兼容之处，特别是当这一战术是由人民组织选择时。他们的目标是要将民众的自发性纳入革命计划，组织和引导这种自发行为，而不是扼杀它。作为革命先锋的少数人，新雅各宾派不仅要领导革命，还要对人民进行政治教育，同时建立一些机构，使他们能够有效参与其中，进一步推动这场运动。他们强调专政的过渡性，专政会持续到国内外敌人被消灭，直到大多数人尤其是农村群众成为“新人”。锻造展现新价值观的共和国公民，是雅各宾传统延续的一条主线。

Among the Commune councilors, Delescluze, Pyat, Gambon, and Demay were typical representatives of Neo-Jacobinism. They not only identified with the views of the old Jacobins but also analogized the situation of 1871 to that of 1793. The Neo-Jacobins, organized on the basis of clubs spread throughout the arrondissements, repeated the Great Revolution’s slogans of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Republic,” “Committee of Public Safety,” and “Commune,” attempting to awaken historical consciousness through the press and public opinion, thereby guiding the people to defend Paris and support the Commune. Emulating their predecessors, they advocated centralization and temporary dictatorship under a state of emergency, dealt resolute blows to the enemy, and at the same time emphasized the cultivation of civic virtue, active participation in public life, and the construction of a politically democratic and egalitarian republic. In terms of organizational structure, the Neo-Jacobins had neither strictly disciplined conspiratorial groups nor a clear working-class base. They oriented themselves toward neighborhoods and communities, with participants regardless of age or gender. Their main supporters came from members of the National Guard, and their organization was built on a network of several important newspapers and a loose but extensive network of popular clubs.

公社委员中，德勒克吕兹、皮阿、冈邦、德麦是新雅各宾主义的典型代表。他们不仅认同老雅各宾派的主张，还将1871年的情势类比于1793年。新雅各宾派以遍布各区的俱乐部为组织基础，重复大革命时期的“自由、平等、博爱”“共和国”“社会拯救委员会”“公社”等用语，试图借助报刊舆论唤醒历史意识，进而引导民众保卫巴黎和拥护公社；他们效仿自己的前辈，主张中央集权和紧急状态下的临时专政，给予敌人以坚决打击，同时注重发扬公民美德，积极参与公共生活，构造一个政治上民主平等的共和国。从组织结构方面来说，新雅各宾派既没有纪律严明的密谋团体，也没有明确的工人基础，他们面向街区邻里，参与者不分男女老幼，主要支持者来自国民自卫军成员，其组织建立在几家重要的报纸和一个松散但庞大的民众俱乐部网络上。

(2) The Blanquist Conspiratorial Commune

（二）布朗基主义的密谋式公社

Blanquism also inherited the tradition of the Great Revolution. This lineage developed from the views of the Hébertists into Babouvism, and was then transmitted through Buonarroti to Blanqui. The core of Blanqui’s doctrine can be summarized as three interconnected links: conspiratorial insurrection, the Dictatorship of Paris (Dictature Parisienne), and communism. This doctrine held that the revolution must be led by a small minority of rigorously trained elites, who would launch an insurrection on a chosen day and complete the seizure of power from Paris. After seizing power, the revolutionaries were to implement a transitional dictatorship. During the dictatorship, there were two main tasks: to carry out changes in political institutions and economic measures based on the value demand of equality; and to propagate atheism based on knowledge and science, educating the people in the values of the new society. Afterward, the Dictatorship of Paris would give way to a communist society. In Blanqui’s absence, his supporters followed the political conception of this spiritual leader, building and transforming the Paris Commune according to the “Dictatorship of Paris.” To a certain extent, the Paris Commune in the eyes of the Blanquists was the realization of their conception of the Dictatorship of Paris.

布朗基主义也承自大革命传统，这一脉从埃贝尔派的主张发展为巴贝夫主义再经邦纳罗蒂传递给布朗基。布朗基学说的核心可概括为：密谋起义、巴黎专政（Dictature Parisienne）、共产主义这三个衔接的环节。这套学说认为，革命必须由经过严格训练的少数精英领导，他们在选定的日子发动起义，从巴黎完成夺权行动。革命者掌握权力之后，要实行过渡性的专政，专政时期有两项主要任务：基于平等的价值诉求，展开政治制度和经济措施的变革；宣传以知识和科学为基础的无神论，对人民进行新社会价值观念的教育。之后，巴黎专政将让位给共产主义社会。在布朗基缺席的情况下，他的支持者们遵循着这位精神领袖的政治构想，根据“巴黎专政”来建设和改造巴黎公社。一定程度上来说，布朗基主义者眼中的巴黎公社是他们观念中巴黎专政的现实化。

The theory of the Dictatorship of Paris was an externalized extension of Blanqui’s elitist views. In his view, Paris was the gathering place of France’s elites and should hold ruling power as the representative of the entire nation. He favored Paris, praising it as “the brain and heart of France,” “the capital of intellect and labor, the true representative of the nation.” Blanqui was critical of convening a constituent assembly immediately after the revolution’s victory; universal suffrage and parliament could not consolidate the fruits of the revolution. What was needed in this period was a revolutionary dictatorship. He believed that the dictatorship of Paris as the representative of the whole in 1793 was equality, and that Paris today would continue to represent it. Blanqui pointed out that dictatorship was not the norm, but only a transitional stage toward communism. Before the ideal was achieved, France had to implement the “Dictatorship of Paris.”

巴黎专政说是布朗基精英观点的外化延伸。在他看来，巴黎是法国精英汇聚之地，应当作为整个民族的代表掌握统治权。他偏爱巴黎，称赞它是“法国的大脑和心脏”，是“才智和劳动的首都，是真正的国家代表”。布朗基对革命胜利后立即召开制宪会议持批判态度，普选和议会无法巩固革命果实，这一时期需要的是革命专政。他认为1793年的巴黎代表全体的专政，也就是平等，当今的巴黎将继续代表着它。布朗基指出专政不是常态，只是走向共产主义的一个过渡阶段，在达成理想之前，法国必须实行“巴黎专政”。

In Blanqui’s view, Paris was the true representative of the nation because its ideas were more advanced than those of the provinces. To rashly hold nationwide elections could only lead to Bonapartist despotism. Before knowledge was universalized, the Dictatorship of Paris had to be adopted as a transition. The Dictatorship of Paris was not a class dictatorship, but the rule of Paris over the whole country, and the rulers were only a portion of Paris’s inhabitants. Mass education after the dictatorship was a key point for advancing communism.

在布朗基看来，巴黎是国家的真正代表，因为巴黎的思想比外省更进步，贸然在全国范围内举行普选只能导向波拿巴式的专制。在知识普及之前，必须采取巴黎专政作为过渡。巴黎专政不是阶级专政，而是巴黎对全国的统治，而统治者只是巴黎的部分居民。专政之后的大众教育，是推进共产主义的一个关键点。

The Blanquists’ understanding of the Commune derived mainly from Blanqui’s doctrine. Before the Commune revolution, they were active among workers and intellectuals, politically regarded as heretics plotting insurrection, suppressed by the imperial government, and could only hide in the lower strata of society through tight organizational forms, secretly enlightening the masses. After the Parisians launched the revolution, members who adhered to Blanqui’s doctrine occupied important positions in the Commune and generally implemented Blanqui’s revolutionary program. About fourteen Blanquists can be clearly identified in the Commune leadership, including Gustave Tridon, Raoul Rigault, Vaillant, and others. The Blanquists believed that after the victory of the uprising, consolidating the revolutionary regime required issuing emergency decrees to strike at the old system. Blanqui’s political views influenced the members, and his followers faithfully executed relevant proposals in the Commune, including “abolishing the army and judges,” “nationalizing religious property,” “reorganizing public officials,” “implementing universal military service,” and “granting no freedom to the enemy.”

布朗基主义者对公社的理解，主要源自布朗基的学说。公社革命前，他们活跃于工人群体和知识分子中间，在政治上被视为密谋叛乱的异端，遭到帝国政府的打压，只能以严密的组织形式藏身于社会底层，秘密地启蒙民众。巴黎人发动革命后，拥护布朗基学说的社员在公社中占据了重要职位，总体上实施着布朗基的革命方案。公社领导层中可以明确辨识的布朗基主义者约为14人，包括古斯塔夫·特里东（Gustave Tridon）、拉乌尔·里果（Raoul Rigault）、瓦扬等。布朗基主义者认为，起义胜利后，巩固革命政权需要颁布紧急规定以打击旧有的制度，布朗基在政治方面的主张影响了社员，他的追随者在公社中忠实地执行相关建议，包括“取消军队和法官”“宗教财产收归国有”“改组公务人员”“实行全民皆兵”“不给敌人以任何自由”等。

The Blanquists believed that in a state of emergency, dictatorial organs should be used to guarantee democracy, but they did not demand the adoption of the name “Committee of Public Safety.” Rigaud agreed to establish the Committee of Public Safety of 1871 rather than that of 1793. Vaillant’s attitude was clearer: he approved the entire proposal but opposed only the name “Committee of Public Safety,” preferring to continue using the name “Executive Committee,” because what mattered was strengthening the Commune’s power, not quarrels over names. Tridon confirmed this from another angle, calling the “Committee of Public Safety” a useless and ridiculous antique, a name that not only added no strength but weakened existing strength. Whether for or against establishing a Committee of Public Safety, the Blanquists all advocated strengthening centralization and implementing the dictatorship of Paris; they wanted present unity rather than divisions caused by an ancient name.

布朗基主义者认为，紧急状态下要借助专政机关来保证民主，但并不要求采用“社会拯救委员会”之名。里果同意成立1871年的社会拯救委员会而不是1793年的社会拯救委员会。瓦扬的态度更为明确，他赞成整个提案，唯独反对“社会拯救委员会”这一名称，他偏向于继续使用“执行委员会”的名称，因为重要的是加强公社的力量而非由名称引发的争吵。特里东从另一面对此加以证实，他称“社会拯救委员会”是无用的和可笑的古董，这个名称不但不能增添力量，反而削弱现有力量。无论是赞成还是反对设立社会拯救委员会，布朗基主义者都主张加强集权，实行巴黎专政，他们想要当下的团结而非古老名称造成的分歧。

There were also clear distinctions between the Neo-Jacobins and the Blanquists. The former were non-socialist republicans of the Robespierre tradition; they supported a highly centralized state, approved of using terror to achieve political ends, followed the tradition of 1792–1793, believed in dictatorship, and tried to drive out invaders by arming the people. The latter came from the Hébertist and Babeufist traditions within the revolutionary tradition; while advocating centralization, they also focused on economic revolution, held a simple belief in the beauty of communist society, and regarded violence and dictatorship as the means to establish and maintain such a society. In short, the Blanquists advocated establishing a centralized egalitarian state, while the Neo-Jacobins changed their action strategies according to the evolving situation, hoping to awaken the people’s spontaneous power. Regardless, both relied on various clubs to convey their views and vigorously mobilized the masses. The difference was that the Blanquists participated in clubs with conspiratorial groups as their core, while the Neo-Jacobins had no such tight organization. Furthermore, the Blanquists drew lessons from the failed construction of the republic during the Great Revolution, combining mass clubs with elite conspiratorial groups to organize and awaken the people, that sleeping sovereign.

新雅各宾派和布朗基派之间也存有明显的区隔。前者是罗伯斯庇尔传统的非社会主义共和党人，他们支持高度集中的国家，赞成利用恐怖手段达到政治目的，他们追随1792-1793年的传统、相信专政，试图通过武装人民赶走侵略者；后者来自大革命传统中的埃贝尔派和巴贝夫派，他们主张集权的同时也关注经济革命，对共产主义社会的美好抱有朴素信念，认为暴力和专政是建立并维持这一社会的方式。简而言之，布朗基派主张建立一个集权式的平等国家，而新雅各宾派紧随形势变化更换行动策略，期待唤醒人民的自发力量。无论何者，他们都依托各种俱乐部传达自身主张，极力动员民众。不同的是，布朗基派以密谋团体为核心参加各俱乐部，新雅各宾派则没有此类严密组织，进一步而言，布朗基派汲取大革命中建设共和国的失败教训，将大众俱乐部与精英密谋团体这两种形式结合起来，有组织地唤醒人民这个沉睡的主权者。

IV. The State as an Association

四、国家作为一种联合体

In the view of the minority, the sovereignty of the Commune was inalienable, and the dictatorship of the Committee of Public Safety violated this principle. They adhered to the principle of autonomous association established at the Commune’s founding, coalescing into an ideological group in opposition to dictatorship, characterized mainly by their belief in Proudhon’s theory of the Commune federation.

在少数派看来，公社主权不可让渡，社会拯救委员会的专政违背了这一原则。他们坚持公社成立之初的自治联合主张，在反对专政中结合成一个观念性团体，以信奉蒲鲁东的公社联邦说为主要特征。

(1) The Commune Minority Defending the Principle of Autonomy

（一）捍卫自治原则的公社少数派

The minority’s collective attitude toward dictatorship was mainly expressed in the “Minority Manifesto” published on May 15. The manifesto stated: “Unlike the majority, we represent those whom we represent, demanding the right to be accountable only to our voters for our actions, and not to hide behind any supreme dictatorial organ.” Among the 21 members who signed the manifesto, most were well-known Proudhonists, all insisting that sovereignty remain in the hands of the Commune, exercised directly by representatives elected by the people. The minority demanded that they govern themselves (autonomy) rather than be governed by others (heteronomy). The form of political power they envisioned was essentially an autonomous federation. This autonomous federation had a dual orientation: internal democratic autonomy and external equal association. Limited by external blockade, the association between communes did not take shape, but the Paris Commune, due to its pioneering role, was representative; it differed from future provincial communes only in sequence, not in rank. Therefore, the “Commune” was actually a democratic and autonomous “small territorial unit.”

少数派对专政的集体态度，主要体现在5月15日发表的《少数派宣言》中，宣言中写道：“与多数派不同，我们代表着我们所代表的人，要求唯有我们为自己的行动而对选民负责的权利，而不能躲藏在什么最高的专政机关之后”。在宣言上签字的21名委员中，多数都是著名的蒲鲁东主义者，他们皆坚持将主权保留在公社手中，由人民直接选举出的代表亲自行使。少数派要求自己管理自己（自治），而不是由他人管理自己（他治），他们设想的政权样式实质上是一种自治联邦。这一自治联邦有双重指向，即对内民主自治、对外平等联合。受限于外部封锁，公社之间的联合未能成型，但巴黎公社因其先发性而具有代表性，它与未来的各省公社仅有先后之别而无高低之分。因此，“公社”实际上是一个民主自治的“小型领土单元”。

The idea of an autonomous federation appeared extensively in the statements of minority members. Lefrançais’s draft declaration for the Commune proposed that Paris entrust political issues to 80 districts divided by territory and economic issues to various associations spontaneously formed by sectoral interests. The Commune federation could politically guarantee direct sovereignty, while the collective ownership of the means of production could achieve true freedom of labor in the socio-economic sphere; the role of the Commune committee was merely to execute and coordinate decisions made at assemblies. In his view, Commune members and other public officials should participate in open meetings and clubs in each district, maintaining direct contact with citizens to justify their actions; the task of the Commune revolution was not to disperse power but to eliminate power itself, thereby restoring the effective sovereignty of every member of social groups. The Paris Artists’ Association, founded by Courbet, provided an experimental example of autonomy within Paris; the association called on Parisian artists to govern themselves, form a league, and break free from the control of authority. Another member, Arnould, believed that the Paris Commune should break the outdated notion that the state is founded on unity and centralization, achieving the social liberation of France; the principle of the Commune revolution was “the workers liberate themselves—group autonomy,” replacing the state with a free federation of communes.

自治联邦的设想在少数派社员的言论中曾大量出现。勒弗朗赛为公社拟写的宣言草案，提出巴黎将政治问题交给按地域划分的80个街区，将经济问题交于按行业界别利益自发结成的各类协会，公社联邦在政治上能保证直接主权，生产工具的集体所有制在社会经济中能实现真正的劳动自由，公社委员会的作用只是执行和协调集会上作出的决定。在他看来，公社委员和其他公职人员应参加各区的公开会议和俱乐部，保持与公民的直接联系，以证明他们的行为是正当的；公社革命的任务不是分散权力，而是消灭权力本身，进而恢复社会团体中每一成员的有效主权。库尔贝组建的巴黎艺术家协会提供了巴黎内部自治的一个试验范例，该协会号召巴黎的艺术家自己管理自己，组成一个联盟，摆脱权威的控制。另一位社员阿尔努认为，巴黎公社应破除国家建基于统一和集权之上这一陈旧观念，实现法兰西的社会解放；公社革命的原则是“劳动者自己解放自己——集团自治”，它以公社的自由联邦取代国家。

(2) Proudhon’s Theory of the Commune Federation

（二）蒲鲁东的公社联邦说

The minority’s tendency toward an autonomous federation was deeply influenced by Proudhon’s doctrine. For instance, Lefrançais praised Proudhon’s autonomous federation for being able, through the division of powers, to confine power within the scope of administration, restore the Commune’s full autonomy, and safeguard individual and collective sovereignty. Courbet even exclaimed that the Commune revolution was launched by the people, “its followers are the workers, its Christ is Proudhon.” Proudhon’s federalism was a contractual arrangement designed to guarantee the social practice of mutualism, minimizing recourse to governmental authority. In his conception, the largest unit (the federal state) was allocated the least power, while the smallest unit (the commune) was allocated the most power, resulting in the subordination of the superior to the inferior; local units were even granted the right to secede, and recognized sovereign parties had the right to withdraw from the group. Every member of the state retained its independence and continued to act as a sovereign; the superior authority would only handle matters concerning the group. As for the role of the state, it was merely a creative initiator, a neutral arbiter, and an executor.

少数派的自治联邦倾向受到蒲鲁东学说的影响颇深。如勒弗朗赛称赞蒲鲁东的自治联邦可以通过分权将权力限制在行政管理范围内，恢复公社的完全自主权，保障个人和集体主权。库尔贝更是直呼，公社革命是由人民发动的，“它的信徒是工人，它的基督是蒲鲁东”。蒲鲁东的联邦制是一种契约安排，用于保障互助主义的社会实践，最小限度地诉诸政府权威。在其构想中，最大的单位（联邦国家）被分配最少的权力，最小的单位（公社）被分配最多的权力，其结果是上级从属于下级，地方单位甚至被赋予脱离的权利，得到承认的主权各方将有权退出该集团。国家的每一个成员都保持其独立性，并继续作为一个主权者行事，上级当局将只处理涉及群体的事务。至于国家的角色，仅是创造性的发起者、中立的仲裁者和执行者。

The political federation is used to guarantee the economic mutual-aid association. Proudhon’s mutualism originated from his understanding of social contradictions. He denounced the social injustice caused by capitalism, namely non-equivalent exchange, which stemmed from two factors: private property and the state. Property owners could derive benefits from the exchange process, selling commodities at prices higher than their value, thereby taxing social products. It was this exchange relationship that created two social classes—the rentier owners and the workers who possessed no capital other than their labor. The “state” was the institution that maintained non-equivalent exchange; it could neither change the system nor create social justice. To achieve social justice, on the one hand, it was necessary to adopt a federal system to reshape the state structure; on the other hand, it was necessary to organize mutual-aid associations to eliminate the problems caused by exchange. Regarding the latter, Proudhon believed that industrial mutual-aid organizations composed of small-scale units were feasible. Individual producers voluntarily united for the purpose of exchange, forming multiple mutual-aid associations, and within each association established credit banks to reduce non-equivalent exchange through direct exchange. The mutually united associations formed an economic federation, namely an “agricultural-industrial federation,” an autonomous “small republic of workers.”

政治上的联邦用于保障经济上的互助协会。蒲鲁东倡导的互助主义源自他对社会矛盾的认识。他控诉资本主义造成的社会不公，即非等价的交换，这种不公来自两个因素：私有财产和国家。财产所有者能从交换过程中获取利益，以高于价值的价格出售商品，从而对社会产品征税。正是这种交换关系造成了两个社会阶级——食利的所有者与除劳动以外不拥有任何资本的工人。“国家”是维持非等价交换的机构，它不可能改变制度或创造社会正义。要想实现社会正义，一方面要采取联邦制重塑国家结构，另一方面要组织互助协会消除交换导致的问题。言及后者，蒲鲁东认为，由小规模单位组成的工业互助组织具有可行性。个体生产者出于交换的目的自愿联合，形成多个互助协会，并在各协会内部组建信贷银行，通过直接交换减少非等价交换。互相联合的协会组成经济上的联邦，即“农业—工业联邦”，一种自治的“工人的小共和国”。

Proudhon had no intention of eradicating the two major factors causing social injustice—private property and the state—and was particularly averse to the communist revolutionary plan to abolish private property and overthrow the state. He attempted to provide a realistic and feasible reform plan—mutual-aid associations in the economic sphere and the federation of communes in the political sphere. Because mutual-aid associations and communes were the forms of group life closest to the individual and the most intimate, they were the natural arenas for implementing this plan. Proudhon did not seek to dissolve sovereignty, but to subdivide it; the groups formed by individual contracting parties always retained sovereignty, and the layer-by-layer union of groups constituted the federal state. The essence of this federalism was to leave more power to citizens rather than the government, and to townships rather than central organs. The commune, as the main carrier, “is a sovereign entity. … (The commune) is either everything, or it is nothing.”

蒲鲁东无意根除造成社会不公的两大因素：私有财产和国家，并且尤为厌恶共产主义者消灭私有财产和推翻国家的革命方案。他试图给出一份现实可行的改良方案——经济领域的互助协会和政治领域的公社联合。因为互助协会和公社是离个人生活最近、也是最亲密的群体生活形式，是实践这一方案的天然场所。蒲鲁东并非要消解主权，而是要细分主权，个人缔约结成的团体始终保持着主权，团体之间的层层联合构成了联邦制国家。这一联邦制的实质是把更多的权力留给公民而不是政府、留给市镇而不是中央机关。作为主要载体的公社，“是一个主权的存在。……（公社）要么是一切，要么什么也不是”。

Proudhon believed that the municipal freedom proclaimed by the commune as a sovereign entity was incompatible with the unitary nature of the government stipulated by the French Constitution, and thus conflict with centralization was inevitable. Once conflict broke out, central power often gained the upper hand, and after turmoil, it always returned to centralization that denied local autonomy. But he believed that the principle of the commune would be realized in the future. Extending Proudhon’s doctrine—if Paris became a commune, then a dictatorship organ should not be established. It would no longer be a capital lording over the provinces, but an autonomous city with equal status to other cities; its political institutions would be composed of representatives directly elected by voters; its economy would be jointly managed by various mutual-aid associations; Paris would be an autonomous unit, and the whole of France would be a federation of communes. These were precisely what the Proudhonists in the Paris Commune practiced. Proudhon and his followers advocated promoting freedom and economic welfare by dispersing political power and establishing mutual-aid organizations. Their theory of autonomous federation was a manifestation of the prevalent concept of association in the 19th century, which regarded the state as a kind of association. What was particularly distinctive was that the association he referred to was based on individuals’ mutual-aid association in the economic sphere, not merely political free association.

蒲鲁东认为，作为主权存在的公社所宣称的市政自由与法国宪法所规定的政府单一性无法兼容，因而与中央集权的冲突不可避免。一旦爆发冲突，中央权力往往占据上风，动荡之后总是会回到否定地方自治的中央集权。但他相信，公社的原则会在未来实现。将蒲鲁东的学说加以延展——如果巴黎成为公社，那么就不应该建立专政机关。它将不再是一个凌驾于外省之上的首都，而是与其他城市地位平等的自治城市；它的政治机构由选民直接选举出的代表组成，它的经济由各种互助协会联合管理；巴黎将是一个自治单元，整个法国将是公社的联合。这些正是巴黎公社中蒲鲁东主义者所奉行的。蒲鲁东及其追随者主张通过分散政治权力和成立互助组织来促进自由和经济福利，他们的自治联邦说是19世纪盛行的联合观念的表现，即把国家视为一种联合。较为特殊的是，他所称的联合是以个人在经济上互助结社为基础，而不仅是政治上的自由结社。

V. Conclusion

五、结语

The Communards of 1871 were generally concerned with the issue of the state. Coming from the middle and lower strata, they attempted to reconstruct the state system from society. The Communards regarded the Commune as a model of the “social republic” and integrated their own historical experiences and siege experiences into the construction of the new regime. The decrees and actions of the Commune showed that the people holding sovereignty was a basic consensus among the Communards. However, on the issue of how to operate democracy, differences emerged among the Communards, and they later split into a majority faction and a minority faction over whether to implement dictatorship. The split between the two factions was deeply connected to their differing understandings of the “Commune”: the majority faction believed that dictatorship was a transition under a state of emergency and did not conflict with the realization of democracy; the minority faction insisted that the sovereignty of the Commune was inalienable and that the state could only be a bottom-up association. The former was a mixture of Neo-Jacobinism and Blanquism, while the latter was deeply influenced by Proudhonism. Regardless of which, the Paris Commune in the eyes of the Communards was not confined to the scope of municipal autonomy, nor did it have an anti-establishment tendency to destroy all forms of the state. This was a powerful rebuttal to the municipalism claimed by the republicans and the anarchy accused by the Versailles government.

1871年的公社社员普遍关注国家议题，身处中下层的他们试图从社会出发重构国家政制。社员将公社视作“社会共和国”的表率，并把自身的历史经验和围城体验融入新政权的建设之中。公社的法令和行动表明，由人民掌握主权是社员的基本共识，但在如何运转民主的问题上社员内部出现分歧，之后围绕是否实行专政分裂为多数派和少数派。两派的分裂与他们对“公社”的差异理解有着深刻联系：多数派认为，专政是紧急状态下的过渡，与实现民主并不冲突；少数派则坚持公社主权不可让渡，国家只能是一种自下而上的联合。前者混合着新雅各宾主义与布朗基主义，后者深受蒲鲁东主义的影响。不论何者，社员眼中的巴黎公社都没有限定在城市自治的范围，也没有摧毁一切国家形式的反建制倾向，对共和派所谓的市政主义与凡尔赛政府指责的无政府状态而言，这是有力回击。

With the defeat of the Paris Commune, the Communards’ understanding of the Commune also underwent new differentiation. Faced with the violent repression by the Versailles army, the surviving Communards either joined the ranks of the radical republicans, acknowledging that the Commune only pursued municipal autonomy; or sided with Bakunin, believing that the Commune was a negation of the state and authority, demanding the complete abolition of the state; or continued to adhere to Blanqui’s doctrine, emphasizing the national character of the Commune revolution and the necessity of dictatorship, planning to launch a surprise attack by organizing a “revolutionary commune” to establish a commune republic; only a few Communards turned to the Marxist position, viewing the Commune as the political form of labor emancipation. Due to the recovery of the French workers’ movement and the spread of Marxism, around the 1880s, the Communards and their supporters gathered under the banner of the workers’ movement to revisit the Paris Commune. They highlighted the socialist nature of the Commune, declared that the Commune was a proletarian action continuing the French revolutionary tradition, and believed that the Paris Commune had opened a new era for workers seeking liberation. Thereafter, the Paris Commune was continuously cited on the socialist path, becoming an important historical example for building a socialist regime.

随着巴黎公社的失败，社员对公社的认知也经历了新的分化。面对凡尔赛军队的暴力镇压，幸存的社员或站到激进共和派的队列中，承认公社仅追求城市自治；或倒向巴枯宁一边，认为公社是对国家和权威的否定，要求彻底废除国家；或继续信奉布朗基的学说，强调公社革命的全国性质和专政必要，策划通过组织“革命公社”发动突然袭击，建立公社共和国；仅有少数社员转向马克思主义的立场，将公社视作劳动解放的政治形式。由于法国工人力量的复苏和马克思主义的传播，19世纪80年代左右，社员及其拥护者聚集在工人运动的旗帜下重提巴黎公社，他们凸显公社的社会主义性质，宣称公社是延续法国革命传统的无产阶级行动，认为巴黎公社开启了工人寻求解放的新时代。此后，巴黎公社在社会主义的道路上不断被征引，成为建设社会主义政权的重要历史样例。

From the perspective of modern state-building, the Paris Commune as seen by the Communards represents an exploration of the early practice of people’s democracy. Commune-style democracy replaced hierarchical appointment with universal suffrage, rejecting both bourgeois representative democracy and allowing various mass organizations such as clubs, associations, and federations to participate in consultation. In essence, it combined electoral democracy with consultative democracy. The operation of commune-style democracy faced the dilemma of whether to strengthen centralization to improve administrative efficiency, which provided a mirror for the proposal of democratic centralism. Furthermore, the issue of whether dictatorship was a necessary transition to democracy or an inevitable opposition led to another synonymous expression of people’s democracy—the dictatorship of the proletariat. And the extension of democracy into the sphere of production, regarding the organization of production cooperatives and collective ownership of the means of production, revealed an economic and social dimension that transcended political equality. Viewed in this light, the “social republic” oriented toward people’s democracy had a more complex structure on the basis of electoral democracy; it was a composite democracy, generally manifested as the organic union and joint governance of various social groups.

置于现代国家建设的视野来看，社员眼中的巴黎公社所呈现的是对人民民主早期实践的探索。公社式民主用普选制取代等级授职制，既拒绝采用资产阶级的代议制民主，又允许各俱乐部、协会、联合会等群众团体参与协商，实质是将选举民主与协商民主相结合。公社式民主的运转，面临是否要加强集权以提升行政效率的困扰，这对民主集中制的提出具有镜鉴价值。此外，专政是实现民主的必要过渡还是必然对立这一议题，导出了人民民主的另一同义表达——无产阶级专政。而民主在生产领域的引申，对于生产合作社的组织以及生产资料的集体所有，显示出超越政治平等的经济社会向度。如是观之，取向人民民主的“社会共和国”，在选举民主的基准上有着更复杂的构造，是一种复合式民主，总体上表现为各社会团体的有机联合与共同治理。

(Author’s bio: Shan Chengxiu, Lecturer and Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Marxism, Shanghai Party Institute of the CPC)

（作者简介：单程秀，中共上海市委党校马克思主义学院讲师、博士后）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心