Talk:Léon Blum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Léon Blum is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Léon Blum as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French or Hebrew language Wikipedias. |
He did not believe that socialism could be achieved by parliamentary means.
Support for this? john 04:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I no longer have the large Blum biography which I used to write this article last year, but that book made it clear that Blum was always a classical Marxist who believed that socialism could only be achieved by way of a revolution, although (being a French intellectual) he was never entirely precise about what that might mean in practice. Adam 05:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, the Majority Socialists in Germany were at least officially still Marxists who believed in revolution (the SPD official doctrine didn't renounce that until 1960 or so), but they were, to all effects, revisionists. Once he leads a coalition with bourgeois parties, I think the gig is rather up for orthodox Marxism, in practice if not in theory. john 05:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say that his practice was consistent with his theory, I said what he personally believed, as evidenced in his (prolific) journalism. Adam 05:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough - I'll leave it as is, although I think the article as it is now gives the impression that Blum would have supported the striking workers (and thus, revolution) if he hadn't feared an army crackdown. This seems a bit questionable, since Blum had just won an election based on an electoral alliance with the Radicals. I'm not sure how better to word it, though.john 06:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Blum would have supported the striking workers (and thus, revolution) if he hadn't feared an army crackdown" - I think that is the case, or at least I think he thought he would have done. I think he retained a belief in La Journee (de la revolution) all his life, although he had no clear idea of how it would come about. In this he was and is far from alone on the French left. Adam 06:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I suppose this is a plausible interpretation. I'm really quibbling with wording as much as anything. I guess that my view is that the current wording makes Blum's opposition seem more contingent than it was. Blum realized that, as a whole, a revolutionary strategy was not plausible in France in the 1930s, and thus that a strategy of cooperation with progressive bourgeois parties was in order. Thus, while the fact that the counterrevolution was too strong was what brought him to this position, it was the already existing popular front strategy that caused him to oppose the strikes, not an immediate fear of counterrevolution. Does this make sense at all? john 06:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes it does. The overriding need to oppose fascism was the motive for the formation of the Popular Front, for both the SFIO and the PCF. The PCF of course explicity renounced revolution during this period, but Blum was less inclined to do so (Blum was consistently more "left" than the PCF, at least rhetorically, but then he was not under orders from Stalin as was the PCF). Blum did not want or expect a revolution in 1936, but that does not mean he did not still find the possibility of one attractive. Not supporting the occupations in 1936 required a conscious and painful act of renunciation for him. I suppose the text could be expanded on this topic, since it was a key turning point in the history of French socialism. Adam 06:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You are wrong about the exact sense of revolution in French. Revolution means in fact "a total change" for a socialist this means obviously the end of capitalism. This is doesn't necessary require popular insurrection. Most French socialist today see revolution as a long-term process. Ericd 16:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I will quote Blum in French : "L’utilisation des procédures légales doit être préférée à toute autre méthode." Ericd 16:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Excellent article. Rollo 23:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm new to the Wiki community; however, it appears the otherwise excellent article is marred by stating that Dachau was the principal place of Blum's imprisonment. According to Joel Colton's Humanist in Politics, Blum was imprisoned from April 1943 to April 1945 in the section of Buchenwald reserved for high-ranking prisoners. He was then trundled around southern Germany and the Tyrol until his liberation on 4 May 1945. He and his wife were held at Dachau only from 17 April through 26 April 1945.67.41.161.168 20:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)MarkC
I think I originally wrote something like that (2 years ago now), but subsequent editors have changed it. I will reword it. Adam 00:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How could he be a Jew if he was a commie?
"How could he be a Jew if he was a commie?" How could Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, the Rosenbergs, etc. be Jews? THEY WERE ALL JEWS! Isn't there a picture of this Jew anywhere?
[edit] Unattributable edit
I see that on 8 April an anonymous contributor removed the first two paras of this entry. But I've been unable to understand why. They look like a couple of pretty inoffensive paras on Blum's early life translated from the French wiki article. I was wondering whether their removal was (1) part of some great discussion taking place .... somewhere, or (2) a simple mistake. Or? If no one has a better idea, I am minded to reinstate those paras, but I am not particularly up to speed with the history of this entry (nor with the life and times of Leon Blum) and I don't want to cut across something that might be a well considered adjustment by a well informed expert. Any thoughts? Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
