Introduction: international/transnational perspectives on the history of French socialism

We begin with a paradox: socialism, which is theoretically internationalist in nature and was at its origins international in practice and structure, has been relatively neglected by scholars as an international and transnational reality. Generally speaking, scholars have approached socialism from a national or subnational perspective, producing studies of French, German, British socialism and socialists among others. To be sure, there is a venerable tradition of comparative history, an approach that remains popular with scholars of socialism.1 Comparison, though, arguably reproduces the preference for national frameworks, even when it highlights similarities across national cases. This preference for national frameworks has reflected larger tendencies in the field of history since the nineteenth century, most notably the development of history as a profession closely aligned with the project of nation-building in which history was divided into national branches.2 In the case of France, the history of socialism has been strongly influenced by national frameworks, as evidenced by the extensive historiography on the French Revolution as well as on the different republican political regimes that fostered varieties of French socialism. This is not to argue that the international or the transnational has been absent from the history of French socialism. An illustrative example is that of Madeleine Rebérioux, the eminent specialist of Jean Jaurès, whose influence was far-reaching and long-lasting. As a Jaurès specialist, Rebérioux focused on France, rooting Jaurès’ socialism in the larger currents of republican ideology. At the same time, she emphasized Jaurès internationalism, both in doctrinal and aspirational terms, and in his activities within the pre-1914 Second International. Indeed, Rebérioux belonged to a larger, multinational and largely European project beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 1980s, which worked to revive the history of the Second International, highlighting the richness of its debates on issues of enduring pertinence (war, peace, militarism, colonialism) as well as the growing divisions between and within its member parties that prefigured the post-1917 split between socialists and communists.3 One result was the publication of numerous documentary collections concerning the International that remain invaluable sources.4 But, for all its value, this project, as well as the scholarship and collection of sources it generated, did not really challenge national frameworks. One reason is that a focus on the International, much like comparative approaches, tended to reproduce national perspectives, a result, in part, of the International’s organization along national lines. Perhaps for this reason the tendency of historians of French socialism was to consider the International—and the international dimension of socialism—from the national context outwards, from the perspective of French socialists. In many ways, Rebérioux embodied this tendency as her scholarship on Jaurès and French socialism merged more and more with the history of French republicanism. And where she led, others followed. Historiography, though, rarely remains fixed, and that of French socialism continues to evolve, partly in response to larger developments in the discipline of history and in the field of socialist history. For several decades now what is sometimes labelled ‘methodological nationalism’ has come under criticism. One result is a flourishing of approaches (transnational, histoire croisée, global history, network history) that all seek to decentre the nation or sometimes even to eclipse it entirely as the central reference point.5 Not surprisingly, perhaps, the history of socialism in general has mirrored these larger developments in the discipline. There are now bi- and multinational, regional and transnational histories of socialism. In a sign of the times, Cambridge University Press recently published a ‘global history’ of socialism, a two-volume collection with contributions from scholars from multiple countries and continents (among them this issue’s two editors).6 At the same time, the national framework continues to exercise a strong hold on scholars of socialism, not least because the national (and subnational) contexts remain vital sites of political activity. The challenge, arguably, is to combine the national and the international, to enmesh them in a framework that neglects neither one nor the other, and that highlights the changing relationship between the two depending on the contexts and actors involved. Hence the interest of the articles in this special issue of French History, that together seek to highlight innovative approaches to the study of the international in order to renew the history of French socialism. A brief definitional point is in order regarding the question of socialism. Definitions of socialism differ among countries. The Germans often use ‘social democracy’, the French ‘socialist’ and the British ‘Labour’; others use the term ‘workers’ movement’. Even in the French case things are far from straightforward. As this introduction is suggestive in nature, offering a limited number of examples, it is worth noting that the term ‘socialist’ can be controversial in France; indeed, the history of the multiple political meanings of ‘socialist’ and ‘social democrat’ merits its own study. That said, the articles collected in this issue discuss people who were, in one way or another, close to or members of self-identified socialist parties, principally but not solely the Parti socialiste/Section française de l’Internationale ouvrière (PS/SFIO). For much of the twentieth century, this category consciously excluded the communists, although it did not, at various times, exclude organizations and movements proposing cooperation between the communist and the noncommunist Left. In what follows, we discuss three perspectives for the study of French socialism: one focusing on the Internationals; another on the influence of colonial issues and of foreign ‘models’; and a final one on the question of militant activities ‘from below’. There are multiple ways to internationalize or transnationalize the history of French socialism. One well-established way is through the history of the Internationals, the formal organizations grouping together parties and individuals from different countries. As mentioned, there now exists a significant body of primary sources on the socialist Internationals, thanks in large part to the multinational project begun in the 1960s and one of whose leading members was Georges Haupt, a Franco–Romanian historian. As a result, it is possible to examine the relations between socialist parties and the Internationals through the different congresses, meetings and exchanges. And from the first Parti ouvrier in 1879 to Lionel Jospin’s declarations to the Socialist International (SI) early in the twenty-first century criticizing Tony Blair’s ‘third way’, the International has occupied a prominent place in the history of French socialism.7 Interestingly, recent scholarship has underscored the existence of other Internationals, for example, conservative Internationals, that previously had escaped the attention of scholars.8 It is now clear that almost all political currents possessed and possess supranational structures in some form or other. That said, there are reasons to suggest that the internationalism of socialists exhibited distinct elements. In addition to a doctrinal internationalism, European socialists, at least, engaged in a sustained practice of internationalism dating back to the nineteenth century, a practice whose institutional expression was the successive Internationals. Social parties, as a result, could draw on a long experience of cross-party interaction and cooperation, that fostered bonds of identity, responsibility and even obligation. By comparison with the sustained international practice of socialists, the transnational efforts of the so-called ‘black’ and ‘white’ Internationals appear limited. European Christian Democrats after 1945, for example, looked with envy at the cooperative structures of their socialist rivals. The only case comparable to socialist internationalism is that of the communists, but the history of communist internationalism and of the Comintern in particular, is marked by the subordination of member parties such as the Parti communiste français (PCF) to the dictates of Moscow.9 From the outset, socialist internationalism was a voluntary if not always consensual affair. Beginning with the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), founded in 1864, there followed the Second International, founded in 1889, the Labour and Socialist International (LSI), founded in 1923, the SI, founded in 1951 and, most recently, the Progressive Alliance formed in 2013, largely in response to the perceived shortcomings of the SI. Along the way, smaller and often dissident Internationals cropped up, including the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (or the Vienna Union) from 1921 to 1923, that laboured to define a third way between socialist reformism and Bolshevik revolutionism.10 The SFIO featured prominently as a founding member of the Vienna Union, and French socialist leaders sought to harness the organization’s mediatory position between socialists and Bolsheviks to soothe the tensions within their own party in the wake of the Tours schism in December 1920, that produced the PCF. And, of course, there was the Comintern (Third Communist International), founded in 1919, that, from the beginning, defined itself against the socialist internationalism of the Second International and its institutional successor, the LSI. Although communists sometimes appropriated the label of socialist, it is probably best to separate the histories of socialism and communism from 1919 (or even from 1917) not only because of the deep antagonism between them, but also because the scholarship on each one has progressed along different and even distinct historiographical paths. When it comes to the history of the International, there exists a rich scholarship on the IWA, though much of which dates back several decades. A recent effort to renew this scholarship is Nicolas Delalande’s study centred on the concept of solidarity, in which French socialists enjoy a leading role.11 The Second International has also attracted several scholars, among them Annie Kriegel, whose pathbreaking studies of French communism root the latter’s emergence in growing tensions within pre-1914 and wartime French socialism.12 For the SI, Guillaume Devin’s study remains indispensable to understand the organization’s functioning as well as the difficulties encountered in efforts to expand the organization beyond its European base.13 More generally, during the twentieth century and especially after 1945, the question of the pertinence of European social democracy, which lay at the heart of all the Internationals, to socialism in other regions was one that could not be avoided—or easily answered—in an era of decolonization and of globalizing international politics.14 Using the Internationals to internationalize/transnationalize the history of French socialism has many advantages. French socialists were intimately involved and, indeed, together with their German and British counterparts, often played leading roles in the creation and functioning of the Internationals. With its institutional structures of congresses and committees, the Internationals provided an important site for interactions between socialists and socialist parties. No less importantly, these formal structures encouraged more informal cooperation, as socialists from different countries knitted personal relations. One thinks of the Kreisky–Brandt–Palme in the that be The International’s formal and informal structures also provided a between the international and the national the member parties to this of the had an international whose was to relations with other parties through the International and also to members at the national of what was on in the of international socialism. Although by doctrinal internationalism, the Internationals, in some ways, as an international organization of nation in which member parties to on One result is that national perspectives were always central to the International’s as each party sought to its own in its national political French socialists numerous of this for example, efforts in the to European socialists the on or in the for the of for his in to the this some socialists who of a socialism of national the of the national in the international had several advantages. it to root the practice of socialist internationalism in national political that it with socialist parties sought at and socialist internationalism had to consider the political of parties when socialist the International could an of as party leaders sought the International’s of a position in order to party and in which party sought from the International and among foreign socialists for their dissident that them to that their party leaders were this produced tensions within and between parties, it also to the pertinence of internationalism to socialists. the of the national and international could Although not all parties within the International influence and larger parties, like the French often more party could its This fostered a of in which socialist parties to consider the perspective of other parties, for position be this parties to other perspectives, in the to expand the of one national party At the same time, one to the to an to the Internationals. a perspective can to an To begin although there is a formal in the successive Internationals, the of their on parties, and the French party in particular, was not the same in as it be a century At the of the founding of the as its française de l’Internationale the International occupied a vital in the of the French Left. it was a of the Second International’s in in that the different French socialist currents to even it is possible to the International’s and more recent studies the and national in the A century when Blair’s it was that the not in the of member that by a to supranational Indeed, it is to the in the century a on the French to to The Annie to this in on the of the the pre-1914 and she on the International’s both in political and did not the to its international in and with meanings and that were more the of in activities to and by a regional on the part of the That said, it be to of the International’s history as one of a of influence such a changing national and international political between and in of popular and the of international actors and the European Union, or of political and one has to consider different of on their own terms, the interaction between the of international issues and the of the International in socialist when in socialists as the of the national political context and sometimes To be sure, even in these international issues could be and sometimes even for French socialists at the of the during the the and from to at the of first relations with European countries in the on relations between French socialists and French when in socialist and with the of the the of international issues for socialists and socialist parties did not an (or of socialist the French socialist challenge to British ‘third under to the to the international socialist it was also arguably a as French socialists not much the Labour as did British that with more general popular within French political of the Indeed, since the of has the of almost all French political currents and not the socialists or even the in offering a of developments French From through the an era marked by the of French socialism strongly national in a result partly of its close with the republican across two it was also closely into are in this one is the of the that is to together with its and the other is the for that fostered the of and the socialist Internationals were and along a focus on them the regions in general and the colonial in the of history that are is that of Indeed, for at least two decades now there has been of an in history. its as a general it is clear that the of French history has beyond the of the the history of is the history of France, that the The history of French socialism has from this To be sure, the has long been a of study for scholars of French socialism. For a long time, though, this was principally a study of what various French socialists its its and its studies for example, of the of French socialists in activities both and especially after The case of is probably the best more recently, as attention has to the of socialists in the One approach on the socialist activities of and approach the socialism of and especially scholars are now the relations between European and socialists in various colonial One into this is through and regional Socialist that both in (and as well as in the The example foreign In their and the ways in which French socialism of and, in particular, in to the more general question of on the French and other socialist parties. When in political or when in a of the French Socialist was more to especially that of other socialist parties. to the creation of the SFIO in the interest in the and British Labour as the deep after the whose as well as among French socialists, or the during the for a often with the of and whose were into In the first case of that of the creation in it is a question of the International’s that with national and In the that of Bolshevik influence during the the influence was one way, from the with from the French socialists, who were divided on the question of to and exercise the and of the Bolshevik that itself was to as the (and the to political developments within countries and in international was not the only possible the several socialist were by the of the socialist de others looked to the of and others sought in a French of British by the prominent place occupied by the The result was between French and socialists, the as well as the nature of internationalism during the often in general histories of the French Left. The third example, that of the during the has also attracted In some ways, this interest is recent studies highlight the of the international socialist network by the three prominent socialist the French appear to a In an with the which produced the in the French Socialist perhaps, had recently the of of with European socialism. Parti a much more its European counterparts, to of its with the communists, an that was not only for and the of communist parties in their but also for these socialists were with a strong perhaps, to have to a more of socialist internationalism as the of Interestingly, the in beyond the and of an with the PCF. For example, de on the of the both an with the communists and an currents of More the a of that for a (and even between socialists and communists, proposing to this at the and an the of that the Socialist Vienna between the as well as as during the and early A issue the question of a French the publication of and important there has been much of a on the part of French socialists in the and the which and its socialism in at the with and the SFIO of As a result, and French socialists with between their and their and easily the political from the existence of a Communist in France, that an of for and party No less importantly, it also the foreign on the part of French socialists, the result of across national and party The for was in part by the that were to many European socialist parties during the It is also worth noting that and of the on a of As has the a during the 1960s whose was to to the that a with the in producing a with and not was the More generally, French scholars to the as a a and consensual a that the that the much like the SFIO and the were multiple political and in parties, individuals and for socialism was at least as much an as it was a national ‘from an approach popular with historians among is relatively when it comes to the history of socialism and of French this approach several advantages. it an (and a to a was limited to a or but was (and what of it in their activities and relations with other socialists and from the party leaders who in international it is worth others who in socialist both national and much remains to be it is possible to point to recent and One of rich in the of in the history of French and possessed though not from did of an in socialist parties and to their and From the a leading for political of various as the itself from the more of the and the Second even the of the socialist were in France, with their The twentieth century, by a significant of the as French more and of all were to 1945, the of from even if it did some and is that of and This has both the political and the of French socialism by and even that of in the case of that of regional European and that of from French and even The sites of interaction between French and indeed, multiple and In this the of a that socialists to the nature and of their internationalist of nation and international, the of and and transnational and in which of of by and Although socialists were not in with these the distinct if relationship of socialism with the nation and the international their efforts debates within the in on the difficulties involved in a socialist one that to national with the from a political In addition to the study of and another way of and the history of French socialism is through the of their and especially their in and between different countries and In it clear that a of and were and sometimes time, across national and regional as a is the Indeed, the efforts to to the of French socialist history. In the possess a for some of these now international socialist When it comes to there is of the of the Internationals but there are also the of socialist parties, that not only a for but also for the activities of network and within the national and international of socialism. To be sure, these always a of socialists, but did a that a larger party indeed, were within parties, and their can and socialist it be to examine more closely the of French within the International as a of the influence of the International on the French the issue of of a number of recent studies the of the and the in transnational It is that and to be among the sites that and to an the countries on are especially At the of the nineteenth century, a socialist was the in of the into of the SFIO during after the into France, on the regional Socialist from this such as as important between the SFIO and the and between the of French and German socialism more are in the practice of within the context of from different countries. More generally, this practice to the larger of socialism, that was a but one into socialist at the national and international To be sure, one to be of the that the international and the transnational were the relations with foreign socialist parties and the that had a on the and on the history of French socialism. and scholarship the of the history of French socialism by international and transnational socialist The is not to the national which has much to of French socialism, with a global one in some a global history can be of socialism and of French socialism in particular, there is to be in order to the interaction and changing between international and national In to this the articles in this issue of French to its

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.