The Ideological Crucible of 19th Century Europe

The third quarter of the 19th century witnessed a profound ideological struggle that would shape modern political thought. As capitalist society celebrated its apparent victories, radical thinkers like T. Erskine May articulated fundamental critiques of the economic order. In 1877, May challenged the very foundations of bourgeois society, arguing that under communist principles, “each should contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs” – a system where the strong would support the weak without personal gain.

This period saw power shifting dramatically, as noted by the Goncourt brothers during the Paris Commune: from the propertied classes to those with “no stake in society’s stability.” The years 1872-1873 appeared particularly bleak for revolutionary movements, yet within a few years, the seemingly triumphant capitalist order would face its most serious challenge since 1848. The memory of recent revolutions remained vivid – any forty-year-old in 1868 had been nearly twenty during Europe’s great upheavals, while fifty-year-olds could recall both the 1830s and 1848 revolutions.

Marx’s Evolving Revolutionary Strategy

Karl Marx’s perspective on revolution underwent significant evolution during this period. Following the disappointments of 1848, Marx and Engels initially hoped economic crises like the 1857 depression might reignite revolutionary fervor. When this failed to materialize, they abandoned expectations of imminent revolution in advanced capitalist nations, though never embracing gradualist social democracy. Marx maintained that even where workers might achieve power peacefully (as he speculated might occur in Britain, America, or Holland), the inevitable violent resistance from former rulers would require revolutionary measures.

By the late 1860s, Marx developed three strategic approaches for undermining capitalism indirectly: through colonial revolutions (particularly Ireland), Russian revolution, and American developments. His analysis proved remarkably prescient regarding Russia, where he anticipated revolution might bypass capitalist development entirely through traditional peasant communes. The American scenario, while correctly predicting the undermining of European agricultural economies, overestimated the potential for proletarian revolution.

The Rise of Alternative Revolutionary Movements

The International Workingmen’s Association (First International) became the primary organizational vehicle for radical ideas, though it encompassed diverse factions far beyond Marx’s followers. Two significant developments marked Marx’s growing influence by 1875: the emergence of a strong German Social Democratic Party and the penetration of his ideas into Russian intellectual circles.

Utopian socialism of the 1830-1848 period had largely faded, giving way to new revolutionary currents. French revolutionary traditions persisted through radical republicans and Blanquist Jacobin communists, while democratic radicalism expressed the aspirations of shopkeepers, teachers, and peasants. Increasingly, revolutionary democracy became synonymous with “social democracy,” as Marxist parties began framing their programs.

Anarchism emerged as a distinctly post-1848 phenomenon, primarily through the works of Proudhon and Bakunin. Proudhon’s theories appealed to artisans resisting proletarianization, emphasizing small-scale production and hatred of all government. Bakunin added revolutionary fervor, organizing anarchist movements across Italy, Switzerland, and Spain. While politically insignificant outside Spain, anarchism reflected both pre-industrial rebellion and contemporary radical individualism.

Russian Populism: A Laboratory of Revolution

Russia developed perhaps the most intellectually significant revolutionary movement of the period – populism (narodnichestvo). Unlike Western Europe, where intellectuals generally assimilated into bourgeois liberalism, Russian intellectuals formed a distinct, predominantly radical social stratum. By the 1860s, following Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War and Alexander II’s reforms (including the 1861 emancipation of serfs), revolution appeared increasingly plausible.

Populism attempted to reconcile contradictory impulses: modernization through “Westernization” while rejecting Western liberal capitalism; appealing to peasant traditions while pursuing socialist transformation. The movement attracted an extraordinary concentration of intellectual talent, including Chernyshevsky, Belinsky, and Herzen, who adapted Western socialist thought to Russian conditions. Remarkably, nearly 15% of arrested populist propagandists were women – an unprecedented participation rate for the era.

Populists oscillated between anarchist terrorism and grassroots education before evolving into disciplined conspiratorial organizations anticipating Bolshevik methods. Though achieving little concrete success, they established continuous revolutionary agitation that would culminate in 1917. The movement’s significance lay in its synthesis of revolutionary ideas that would influence twentieth-century revolutions across the developing world.

The Paris Commune: Myth and Reality

The most dramatic revolutionary event of the period occurred unexpectedly in 1871 with the Paris Commune. Lasting just under two months (March 18-May 28), the Commune became a potent symbol for international socialism despite its brief existence. As Lenin would later note, surpassing the Commune’s duration became a milestone for the Bolshevik government.

The Commune emerged from the collapse of Napoleon III’s regime during the Franco-Prussian War. When the provisional republican government sought to disarm Paris’s National Guard (dominated by workers), the city rose in rebellion, establishing an autonomous municipal government. The Commune’s actual policies remained moderate, focusing on secular education, worker cooperatives, and municipal democracy, but its mere existence terrified European elites.

International reaction revealed bourgeois society’s profound fears. Wild rumors spread of communist confiscations, “wife-sharing,” and mass executions. Governments collaborated to suppress Communard refugees, while the “Three Emperors’ League” (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia) formed partly as a counter-revolutionary alliance. The Commune’s suppression proved brutally efficient – conservative estimates suggest over 20,000 Parisians were killed during “Bloody Week,” with thousands more imprisoned or exiled.

The Communards: Profile of a Revolution

Analysis of arrested Communards reveals the uprising’s social base: predominantly skilled artisans (32% of arrested printers held National Guard officer positions) alongside construction and metal workers. The Commune represented less an industrial proletariat than the traditional Parisian working class – a mix of artisans, small shopkeepers, and service workers.

While the Commune’s socialism remained rooted in 1848-era producer cooperatives rather than Marxist theory, its historical significance was profound. For revolutionaries, it demonstrated the necessity of maintaining power once seized; for European elites, it confirmed their worst fears about proletarian revolution. The bloodshed created an enduring divide between French workers and the bourgeoisie that would shape French politics for generations.

Legacy: From 1871 to 1917

The revolutionary movements of this period established patterns that would dominate the next century. Russian populism provided the organizational template for Bolshevik success. The Paris Commune became both a warning to elites and an inspiration for revolutionaries worldwide. Most significantly, these movements marked the definitive shift of revolutionary energy from bourgeois liberalism to proletarian socialism – a transition that would culminate in 1917 and shape global politics throughout the twentieth century.

The ideological laboratory of 1860-1875 tested various revolutionary models: anarchist insurrection, populist mobilization, and urban commune. While most failed immediately, their lessons would be studied, adapted, and ultimately implemented by later revolutionaries facing different historical circumstances. In this sense, the “failed” revolutions of this era proved far more influential than most successful ones in history.