Nos Révolutions

This text is taken from a speech given during the Journées de Mauprévoir, from August 15 to 17, 2025. Gilles Candar is a historian and president of the Société d’Études Jaurésiennes (SEJ). Journées de Mauprévoir, du 15 au 17 août 2025. Gilles Candar est historien et président de la Société d’Études Jaurésiennes (SEJ).

In France, municipal socialism holds a unique position that has no equivalent in comparable countries. It’s not just a phenomenon that has endured and continues to be an essential element of our national political life. It has nested itself at the heart of our political practices and controversies, writing a slightly different, alternative history to that of socialism as a doctrine or an organization. Alongside municipal communism, which is both a specific case and a distinct, irreducible alternative, it offers an invitation to challenge our understanding of general political history.

It has been the subject of numerous studies and approaches. Among the political scientists, we can notably mention Michel Offerlé,¹, Frédérick Sawicki² or Rémy Lefebvre³Among historians, following the path of Maurice Agulhon⁴at least Madeleine Rebérioux should be cited.⁵Jacques Girault and Emmanuel Bellanger for the communists⁶and Jacqueline Lalouette for the secular and particularly free-thinking movement.⁷but first and foremost, Patrizia Dogliani.⁸essential reference on the subject and among others for this communication, then, for the following period, Aude Chamouard⁹. And, of course, taking into account all the monographs, biographies, and various specific studies.

A politicization at the communal level

In France, the communal level plays a vital role in political struggleswhether one takes a revolutionary perspective, ranging from the Commune of the Great Revolution (1789-1795) to the Paris Commune (1871)—seen as a precursor to the great social revolutions of the following century—or one remains within a history of the country's long-term politicization and democratic acculturation.

The Guizot Law (March 21, 1831) followed closely on the heels of the July Revolution. Indeed, it maintained a highly restrictive suffrage (based on property qualifications) and the appointment of mayors by prefects. However, mayors had to be chosen from within the municipal council, which limited prefectural arbitrariness and made it possible to consider the eviction of an unpopular mayor following an electoral defeat. Furthermore, the law significantly expanded the electorate, not only compared to the previous system but also in relation to parliamentary elections. It required a minimum of 10% — and up to 15% — of the adult men in a commune to constitute the electorate. This represented a million people, five times the size of the parliamentary electorate. As Maurice Agulhon points out, this progressively helped to generalize and popularize electoral debate at the time of local elections.

The Republic made a new and very strong advance with the Waldeck-Rousseau Law of April 5, 1884, one of the great laws that marked the establishment of a Republic managed by republicans. Mayors were now elected by municipal councils, as had been decided back in 1882.Members of municipal coucils continued to be elected by universal suffrage (in the sense of the time: male suffrage), and above all, the communes obtained a general clause of competence. Of course, this measure, taken in the name of liberal and democratic principles, was at once essential, fundamental, and very controlled in its application: Paris was excluded from common law because the memories of the Commune, and its various precedents, were still too vivid and recent; prefectural supervision ensured that no seditious or simply unreasonable spirit could prosper anywhere.

The founders of the Republic were statesmen concerned with placing republican principles beyond the reach of revolutionary schemes.One of their principal representatives, Jules Ferry, who was the last mayor of Paris in 1870-1871, overthrown by the Commune and serving as President of the Council when the law was passed, explained it without concealment: "The Republic must be a government" (Bordeaux, August 30, 1885), and, if necessary, "if we must make laws of iron, we know how to do so, and we have." (Senate, February 2, 1891). This would fundamentally remain the characteristic of republican power for a century and a half: liberal and democratic principles (most often) tempered by state vigilance. The normal dialectic between the left and the right consisted of either loosening or, conversely, tightening this vigilance, while the realities of the balance of power quite logically most often gave the advantage to the proponents of a bourgeois order.

The return of the socialists through the town halls

A matter of doctrines and debates in the 1840s, a symbol of social fears and hopes in 1848 and at the end of the Empire, associated with the Commune and subsequently outlawed, socialism would become a force again not solely through the municipal channel, but in large part thanks to it.The complexity and national specificity are largely due to the fact that this return was both made possible by and linked to the republican victory, without being completely conflated with or identical to it. The republican victory led to a law of amnesty and the return of the Communards from exile or penal servitude, as well as freedom of the press, assembly, and election, and even the right to form trade unions. All these measures were part of a vast legislative framework voted on between 1897 and 1885. The political and social forces were both at the forefront of the republican movement and in open conflict with its current policies and its leaders.¹⁰.

Socially, the socialist movement reasserted itself with social conflicts, strikes (legalized in principle since 1864), and trade unions, which would only be officially recognized in 1884.Politically, this was the case with participation in legislative electoral campaigns, sometimes in a confrontational manner (various candidacies of Blanqui, while imprisoned, leading to his invalidated election in April 1879 in Bordeaux). In the spring of 1886, it was sometimes in the continuity of an extreme-left parliamentary republican radicalism (the election of Clovis Hugues in Marseille, a declared socialist, in the La-Belle-de-Mai district in August 1881). A first worker's group, advocating for "the progressive nationalization of property" and the transformation of monopolies into "public services managed by corporations under the control of public administration," was formed in the Chamber around Antide Boyer.

But the municipal victories were surprising and appeared as pledges of great changes to come, whether this was a cause for concern or a source of hope.The mining town of Commentry (Allier) is thus considered to have elected the world's first socialist municipality on June 4, 1882. Still discreet in 1884 and 1888, the socialist presence asserted itself and changed its dimension with brilliant successes in the 1892 and 1896 elections. Very large cities such as Lille, Roubaix, Marseille, Toulon, Limoges, Roanne, Calais, and Sète elected socialist mayors. These successes served as a basis for the construction of a major political organization that would transcend existing groups, clubs, and parties to revive the ambition of the International Workingmen's Association at the end of the 1860s.

This situation is unique, whereas in many other countries, the party would be built by relying on trade unions or on national-level elections. It represented its successes to itself in a great celebration, the "Banquet of Socialist Municipalities," held on May 30, 1896, at La Porte Dorée (but the meeting is often known by the name of the nearby locality: Saint-Mandé). Jaurès, Guesde, Vaillant, and others delivered speeches. Alexandre Millerand, in particular, a leading figure in parliamentary socialism and the host of the meeting as the deputy for Bercy, gave a key speech for the definition of republican socialism. He laid out three fundamental principles: the collective appropriation of the means of production and exchange, the electoral conquest of public powers, and international understanding and the rejection of nationalisms, which would long constitute the common ground of the French left. The memory of this has since faded due to Millerand's later political evolution, as a minister, then as President of the Council and of the Republic, increasingly moving to the right. But in 1896, Millerand was accepted by Guesde, approved by Jaurès, and closely linked to Vaillant.

A former member of the Paris Commune, Édouard Vaillant was then the key figure in municipal socialism. He himself never held the office of mayor, but he was a municipal councilor for the Père-Lachaise district (20th arrondissement of Paris) from 1884 to 1893.^e and, above all, the initiator, trainer, and organizer of socialist municipal action throughout the country, particularly in the Seine and Berry regions, where he exerted a decisive influence. He truly embodied the dual movement of socialism at the time: both preserving the revolutionary memory of the Commune and engaged in an action of daily defense and transformation at all levels of the country. He was the candidate of "communal autonomy" in the 1884 municipal elections and the leader of the Blanquist Central Revolutionary Committee..

Starting in 1892, he organized the first Federation of Socialist Elected Officials, the ancestor of the current FNESR and ANECR, which he hoped would be as unifying as possible. This was not so easy, and while he was largely successful with the elected officials allemanistes »¹¹ of the Revolutionary Socialist Workers' Party (POSR in french). He had more difficulty with elected officials on the fringes of independent socialism or the radical-socialist left. Relations were often complicated with the Guesdists of the French Workers' Party (POF in french), who were proponents of unity but inclined to lead it with a firm hand. The Guesdists organized their own Federation of Elected Officials after the 1896 municipal elections. In principle, the rapprochement between these two branches of the socialist movement—which led to a principled fusion in late 1901-1902 and the achievement of socialist unity in April 1905—put an end to all competition. In any case, we must acknowledge that for the entire pre-war period, these were more rough drafts and declarations of principles than true achievements.

Programs and achievements

These first socialist municipalities ranged from very large cities to villages. The suburbs were not yet truly considered as such, and in any case, they would have been more associated with a moderate or conservative space.Historically, the National Guard contingents from the suburbs, as well as the elected officials representing them on the Seine General Council, were opponents of the progressive camp. The "red belt" around Paris would only be established starting with the municipal elections of 1912, and even more so in the interwar period, especially as the communists would clearly gain the upper hand over the socialists in the Paris region.

In rare cases, socialists were able to administer the municipalities they won alone. The municipal election was an important factor in accustoming people to **unity lists**, whether they were republican or for social action—in short, "of the left."The paradox, perhaps an apparent one, is that the necessity or the interest of union was a question that arose for socialists of all doctrinal and organizational tendencies. Even the most left-wing factions—those critical of the republican politics of the "opportunist" or "moderate" governments, as well as the radical opposition—like the Guesdists or the neo-Blanquists, were led to consider this question and, more often than not, answered it favorably. Thus, in Lille, the regional leader of the Workers' Party, Gustave Delory, had to reach an agreement with Dr. Charles Debierre, the head of the radicals, to take control of the mayor's office, which he succeeded in doing between 1896 and 1904 as well as after 1919. The political controversy then often centered on whether such alliances were a matter of " republican discipline " or " class interest ", but concretely there are hardly any differences between their possible political translations.  

Socialists first and foremost practiced a social policy. Support for the poorest, especially women, children, and the elderly, was clearly stated.Implementation began with the distribution of food or clothing and the organization of medical assistance, which could extend to the opening of a municipal pharmacy, care centers, or nurseries. This social policy aligned with the hygienic concerns that were gaining traction among republicans and in other political sectors. It found favor in actions such as disinfection or rat extermination and the opening of public baths and showers. On the Paris Municipal Council, Vaillant regularly intervened for the construction of public street urinals.

But the socialist specificity is to insist on this policy by including a questioning of the sacred rights of individual property.This was a key factor, notably during the preparation and vote on the public health law of February 15, 1902. Besides mandating the first national smallpox vaccination, it provided for the establishment of communal sanitary codes and gave more power to mayors. It is no coincidence that this was another **Waldeck-Rousseau law**, as he was then leading a government of "republican defense" (1899-1902) that initiated a number of social measures after a full decade of conservative and repressive stagnation. The goal was certainly not to threaten what some might call the **bourgeois order**, but rather to allow it to maintain itself by accepting a certain number of reforms—undoubtedly limited—that the socialists fully intended to expand and use to achieve more profound transformations.

Contrary to what one might think, the socialist municipalities initially paid little attention to the question of housing.This is often perceived solely through the prism of the housing question, which pits the tenant against the landlord, whether individual or collective " Monsieur Vautour »¹². Republican legislation on the construction of social housing was quite late, and it tended to emanate more from moderate republicans. Examples include the Jules Siegfried Law (1894), the Paul Strauss Law (1906), and the Laurent Bonnevay Law (1912). Socialists were quick to seize upon these initiatives and propose more ambitious projects, but they had hardly preceded them.

In contrast, socialists were very active on the educational front from the very beginning. Theoretical reservations about Ferry's educational policies seem to have been mostly confined to the press. In practice, socialists participated in the educational effort just like other republican forces. For instance, the election of a workers' and socialist municipality in Carmaux (1892) was primarily motivated by the desire to have a public and secular school in the working-class neighborhood rather than a religious one. Socialists simply placed a greater emphasis on organizing canteens and opening vocational schools.

They supplemented this effort with a very active policy of transforming the names and references of the urban space : The secularization of public street names in favor of thinkers or activists for the progressive cause, as well as the encouragement of libraries and performances (theater, music, songs) likely to contribute to this mobilizing awakening of the people.

In contrast, long associated with a theme of military preparation or aristocratic leisure, sport was neglected and, in practice, more often handled by Catholic or nationalist organizations. It was only quite late that socialists tried to make up for their delay, becoming aware of the popularity of sports activities among young people, including in working-class communities: a journalist at L’Humanité, In 1907, with great difficulty and little support, Abraham Kleynhoff launched the Socialist Party Sports Union, which was the origin of the current Workers' Sports and Gymnastics Federation (FSGT). However, it was only after the Great War that a sports policy truly—and then very broadly—spread within working-class municipalities.

Of course, governance also has political effects. It forces different groups and activists to work together. This is also how socialist unity was gradually built, a long and complicated process that culminated in April 1905 at the congress of the Salle du Globe in Paris with the creation of the Socialist Party (French Section of the Workers' International, SFIO). It is also a pedagogy of political action, which according to Jaurès was one of the important elements that must accustom activists to a future socialist society. It is also part of the process of the socialists' acceptance of taxation.¹³Initially, they sought to lower the taxes on goods paid at the city gate (l'octroi). However, their policies required revenue, and thus, social acceptance of taxation was gradually built, provided the tax was equitable and progressive, and the use of the revenue was visible, understandable, and explained. For the management of communal services, the principle of direct public management (la régie directe) became widespread in municipalities run or heavily influenced by socialists

A Battle of Principles

For two to three decades, municipal socialism was the subject of doctrinal controversies. The first candidacies in the 1880s were accompanied by position statements, essays, and articles aiming to develop a coherent body of doctrine¹⁴. A number of references are regularly cited, notably the pamphlets by Benoît Malon, Le nouveau parti¹⁵ and by Paul Brousse, La propriété collective et les services publics¹⁶ who argue that " the municipal question is more than half of the social question. " or the various candidacies and programs of Jules Joffrin in the 18th arrondissement of^e Paris¹⁷They drew heavily from the work of César de Paepe, a Belgian socialist who authored a report on the organization of public services at a final congress of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA) in Brussels in 1874.¹⁸All were supported and their work was popularized in activist or scholarly circles by La Revue socialiste Benoît Malon's journal, which was published regularly starting in 1885, defined socialism as being based on the organization of public services responsible for producing and distributing essential goods. These services notably concerned water and gas, and later, electricity.

These analyses provoked many press controversies, between Le Socialiste led by Guesdists Le Prolétaire led by Broussists in particular. For the Guesdists, the essential question was the collective appropriation of the means of production and exchange, not the establishment of public services. The conquest of municipalities served as a prelude to a broader political battle—the conquest of state power. « . "There is no such thing as municipal socialism." Guesde hammered home this point as often as he could. Nevertheless, Guesdists who took part in electoral battles were led to consider the question of municipal governance and to highlight the quality of the policies being carried out. This path was all the easier to follow because socialists from various groups could be elected together, whether on the same list or not. They were therefore led to act in opposition together, which could already require a degree of coordination, or even to govern together in the event of a victory.

Not all councilors were necessarily committed to a strictly defined socialism, and many were influenced by their most active leaders : Jaurès in the Chamber of Deputies for national politics and Vaillant as a practitioner and then an inspiration for local policies, calling for a strengthening of ties with local unions and labor exchanges (Bourses du travail). This is how a discreet "municipal socialism" gradually established itself, avoiding the ideological clashes of congresses in order to focus on the problems of the concrete application of principles.

The doctrinal controversy at the Saint-Quentin Congress (April 16-19, 1911) once again pitted the Guesdists against the proponents of a new reformism : Edgard Milhaud, a professor at the University of Geneva and director of the international journal Annales de la régie directe , like Albert Thomas, a municipal councilor and then mayor of Champigny-sur-Marne before becoming a key figure in social reformism.¹⁹It fueled activist reflection without leading to any particular political conclusions. The period was marked by a vitality of research that sought to provide a reasoned foundation for the socialists' activities. A group of normaliens—students from the prestigious École Normale Supérieure—linked to young activists, among whom were some of the century's future major intellectuals, conducted a study that was presented in the pamphlets of the Cahiers du Socialiste : The land policy of the municipalities by Maurice Hallbwachs The economic organization of municipalities by Henri Lévy Bruhl Municipal Socialism: The Lesson from Abroadby Louis Gernet (under the pseudonym Louis Garnier). Municipal Enterprises and Socialism by Edgard Milhaud Assistance and the municipalities by André Bianconi Open Spaces and Fortifications by Albert Thomas²⁰, etc. This fine effort did little good in the 1908 municipal elections, which were mediocre, or even bad, for the socialists, who had nonetheless started out confident due to their recent unification and the difficulties of the radical government in power (Clemenceau). However, it is fair to think that it gradually infused and nourished the teams to come. The 1912 elections also saw the first formation of what would later be called the "Red Belt" around Paris, with numerous successes in the suburbs.

The apparently quiet strength of municipal socialism

In fact, municipal socialism gradually gained power, with relative discretion in national commentaries and even within its own historiography. Thus, in 1912, the elections took place in a more serene atmosphere than the previous ones, under a moderate government (Poincaré) that was quite open to social issues. The Minister of Labor, Léon Bourgeois, even succeeded in lowering the potential retirement age to 60, despite opposition from the Senate. The elections were rather favorable to the socialists, who regained Toulouse, Limoges, and Roubaix (while losing Marseille) and made numerous gains in small and medium-sized towns. During the war, the solidarity policies they implemented proved to be quite consensual.

At the end of 1919, the legislative elections were the focus of attention. Bolstered by their renewed unity and an undeniable surge in activism (in terms of members, press circulation, etc.), the socialists expected to make strong gains. However, their progress in terms of votes was very limited, and, above all, their political isolation led them to lose nearly a third of their seats. The spiral of failure and divergences over the line to adopt would soon lead to the Tours Split, the formation of two rival parties (SFIO and SFIC), and a replication of the union split (CGT and CGTU). The municipal elections that followed just two or three weeks later therefore went rather unnoticed. However, they saw the socialists double the number of their mayorships, without the individuals concerned even particularly commenting on this new situation during their national congresses (in Strasbourg and then Tours in 1920), which were marked by intense ideological controversies.

Municipal communism, which established itself in 1925 and would achieve great success in 1935, developed under the control of a party concerned with avoiding any risk of reformism and prioritizing national political victories. Its management had to be exemplary and mobilizing. An influential network gradually took shape around Georges Marrane, mayor of Ivry (1925-1965) and secretary of the Federation of Workers' and Peasant Municipalities (1931), who was very active in numerous inter-municipal unions and various commissions from the 1930s onwards²¹. Popular neighborhoods²² and suburbs, politically advanced rural areas around the Massif Central, competed to present a vision of a working-class and peasant France preparing for a radiant future as soon as the global victory was won.

For its part, the SFIO did not put too much emphasis on its municipal strength. It nevertheless managed numerous cities, reaching a peak in 1935 (with 1,375 mayorships claimed), but it scarcely made the topic a subject of debate during its meetings. However, its federation of elected officials now operates regularly, driven by a former disciple of Vaillant, Henri Sellier.²³, mayor of Suresnes, and, above all, for a long time the administrator of the Office for Low-Cost Housing of the Seine and the Budget Rapporteur for the General Council of the Seine. Inspired by the examples of Britain, Scandinavia, Austria, and Germany, he advocated for the establishment of garden cities²⁴ and engaged his colleagues in a comprehensive reflection on urbanism and social hygiene.

A few examples are highlighted, such as Villeurbanne under the mayorship of Lazare Goujon, a great builder-mayor with a modernist spirit who operated in a climate of competition with the PCF. Also noted is Toulouse with Étienne Billières, known for its popular housing estates, its renovated labor exchange, its sports park, and its large library²⁵or similarly open to modernism, Boulogne-Billancourt, which was managed by André Morizet, a former SFIO "insurrectionist" and co-founder of the PCF who became a major socialist figure and president of his senatorial group.²⁶Châtenay-Malabry, administered since 1925 by Jean Longuet, was home to the Butte rouge Garden City, with numerous facilities, including one of the very first suburban swimming pools, but the town failed to obtain the public transportation initially planned to serve it. When the Popular Front government was being formed, Léon Blum called upon the experience of many mayors: Roger Salengro (Lille), then Marx Dormoy (Montluçon) for the Ministry of the Interior; Vincent Auriol (Muret) for the Ministry of Finance; Robert Jardillier (Dijon) for the Ministry of PTT; Jean-Baptiste Lebas (Roubaix) for the Ministry of Labor; Henri Sellier (Suresnes) for the Ministry of Public Health; Charles Spinasse (Égletons) for the Ministry of the National Economy; Henri Tasso (Marseille) for the Merchant Marine; and François Blancho (Saint-Nazaire) for the Ministry of the Navy. Léo Lagrange (Avesnelles), a municipal councilor, was the inspiration for the municipal policy of his small town. Paul Faure (Le Creusot), Albert Bedouce (Toulouse), and Georges Monnet (Celles-sur-Aisne) were former mayors. Ultimately, the only socialists who lacked this experience were Léon Blum, Jules Moch, and Albert Rivière, who was a general councilor for Boussac, and of course, the non-elected Suzanne Lacore.

In any case, the interwar period remained a great era of social, athletic, and cultural achievements that would define and sustain the image of municipal socialism. Its importance is all the greater because, on a national level, the socialists are struggling to find a specific voice: one that is socialist yet always democratic, republican, and secular, but also genuinely popular, in order to distinguish themselves from both communism and radicalism, all while practicing unity with one or the other of these two forces, and after 1935, often with both at the same time.

The post-war period did not belie this reputation. While on a national level the socialists experienced difficulties, outclassed by the communists from the very first elections, resorting to a "Third Force" policy criticized by the latter as well as by the Gaullists, gradually weakening in national elections, often divided and highly contested after the Guy Mollet government (Suez, the Algerian War with the sending of the contingent, etc.), and the rallying to De Gaulle in 1958, municipal socialism maintained a solid appearance with Toulouse, Marseille (retaken in 1947 by Gaston Defferre), Lille (retaken in 1955 with Augustin Laurent), Clermont-Ferrand, Limoges, and numerous other cities. Within the framework of alliances with centrists, and in their struggle against the communists, a socialist list leader often appeared to be the best option to win or to govern. It was a time for Reconstruction: Marseille boasted of building 7,000 housing units per year, and Louis Bazerque had built Le Mirail in Toulouse. All over the country, summer camps, school buildings, hospital facilities, and homes for the elderly were multiplying, and cultural festivals (including the one in Avignon) and support for theaters were being established.

The model, however, ultimately grew old or became commonplace²⁷, socially, culturally, and politically. Following the Épinay Congress in 1971, François Mitterrand's Socialist Party advocated a "Union of the Left" strategy. It was accepted by most of the old guard from the former SFIO (Defferre in Marseille, Mauroy in Lille, etc.), and it also allowed for the continuation of competition in other forms. As the communist leader Étienne Fajon would say in a famous conference, "Union is a fight"²⁸. For the two parties, the 1977 elections marked the pinnacle of their influence and municipal successes.

New concerns emerged in the wake of the protests of the 1960s and the rejuvenation of society: quality of life, traffic, a more active and rejuvenated cultural policy, and demands for a more active democracy and for self-management, as was often said at the time in socialist or alternative circles (the PCF spoke of "autonomy of management")... They were carried by new teams, and they colored and supported the overall leftward push that, despite various setbacks, translated nationally into the arrival in power of François Mitterrand and the socialists after 1981, ultimately repeated for four legislative terms (1981-1986, 1988-1993, 1997-2002, 2012-2017). A comprehensive work that complements the already-mentioned one by Aude Chamouard, which is more interested in political history, by prioritizing the social and cultural record of these achievements under the successive Republics would, of course, be highly desirable, especially as more and more high-quality local and regional historical studies now exist.

And today ?

Is this municipal socialism as flamboyant today? Several commentators have spoken of its decline, or even its death, after the difficult elections of 2014. The assessment that experts regularly attempt to draw up in reports published by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation or elsewhere remains, however, contrasted, balanced, or at least mixed. Municipal socialism is even holding its own in large cities. Of 42 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, 24 are managed by the left, including 15 socialists, 7 Greens, and 2 communists. On the other hand, of 270 cities with more than 30,000 inhabitants, the right is in the majority with 169 compared to 101 for the left. The left's total includes 47 socialists, 9 Greens, 15 communists, and around thirty from a miscellaneous left who are more or less hesitant about aligning with the presidential majority.

The socialists remain dominant on the left in departmental structures (30 départements have a socialist president and 2 have a left-wing radical president) and regional structures (4 metropolitan regions), but this is within a context that is favorable to the right. However, the 2026 elections, and subsequent ones, could modify this state of affairs with a vast and new offensive by France Insoumise, which is practically absent from the local levels despite attempts in 2020 (Faches-Thumesnil, Grabels, and Piennes are not enough to really make it a force at this level). The Greens have won very large cities (Lyon, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Besançon, Tours, Strasbourg, etc.), but are clearly absent from the other levels. Municipal communism still concerns 256 cities with more than a thousand inhabitants, and its presence is often appreciated in many left-wing cities, as evidenced by the sporadic election of communist mayors in very clearly socialist cities (Sarcelles in 2018, Tulle, etc.). However, these numbers now only represent a third of those obtained in 1977.

In any case, we seem to observe a double movement of dispersal and gathering. Dispersion at the level of political labels: the emergence of the Greens, or at least the party bearing that name, is undeniable and lasting, since the PS, the PCF, and LFI all claim to be just as committed to ecological objectives. The Insoumis have not yet demonstrated that they can become a municipal force, but numerous signs can lead them to hope that this will be different after 2026. In any case, the very weakened weight of the traditional parties has greatly diminished and explains the phenomenon of regrouping.

Rather than municipal socialism, we should now speak of the municipal left, with its diversities, contradictions, and similarities. The content may be less easily understood now, with increasingly complex and technical management, as well as state and governmental constraints aimed at depoliticizing and imposing stricter frameworks on all local authorities, as Marie Jay demonstrated in her talk during the same Jounées de Mauprévoir. Control has always existed, more or less, but it was simpler in the past to understand what belonged to the choices of the various parties. It's more difficult, but we're getting there...

Ultimately, the association of social, cultural, and educational priorities, with a proclaimed concern for democratic expansion, has been a constant theme throughout the history of municipal socialism, taking on different forms and, of course, with its share of successes and failures, attempts and abandonments, as well as comebacks... The classic definition of an "indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic"²⁹, which is at the core of the left's political struggles, remains strong and inspiring, and no doubt especially at the communal level.

---

1. Michel Offerlé, Les socialistes et Paris, 1881-1900. Des communards aux conseillers municipaux, 2 vol., thèse d’État, Paris 1, 1979. ↩︎
2. Frédéric Sawicki, Les réseaux du Parti socialiste, Paris, Belin, 1997. ↩︎
3. Rémy Lefebvre, Municipales : quels enjeux démocratiques ?, Paris, La Documentation française, 2020. ↩︎
4. Maurice Agulhon, pour l’ensemble de son œuvre sur l’histoire républicaine, mais signalons particulièrement « La Mairie » in Les lieux de mémoires. 1. La République, Paris, Gallimard, 1984. ↩︎
5. Directrice de thèse de Patrizia Dogliani. Voir aussi son article « Sur le municipalisme », Politique aujourd’hui n° 3-4, 1971. ↩︎
6. Emmanuel Bellanger et Jacques Girault (dir.), Villes de banlieue, Grâne, Créaphis, 2008. ↩︎
7. Jacqueline Lalouette, La Libre Pensée en France 1848-1914, Paris, Albin Michel, 1997. Voir aussi « Le citoyen Rosenthal, 4^e adjoint » in Vincent Chambarlhac et alii, Léon Rosenthal, militant, critique, et historien d’art, Paris, Hermann, 2023. ↩︎
8. Patrizia Dogliani, Le socialisme municipal en France et en Europe de la Commune à la Grande Guerre, Nancy, Arbre bleu éditions, 2018. ↩︎
9. Aude Chamouard, Une autre histoire du socialisme. Les politiques à l’épreuve du terrain 1919-2010, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2013. ↩︎
10. C’est ce que j’ai essayé d’exposer rapidement dans Pourquoi la gauche ?, Paris, PUF, « Questions républicaines », 2022. ↩︎
11. Du nom de l’ancien communard Jean Allemane, rétif à l’organisation guesdiste, antimilitariste et méfiant envers le parlementarisme, bien implanté notamment dans la Seine et dans les Ardennes, qui maintient un courant spécifique de 1890 à 1905, voire au-delà. ↩︎
12. Paul Lafargue publie une série d’articles dans L’Humanité en décembre 1908-janvier et février 1909 publiés en brochure sous le titre M. Vautour et la réduction des loyers, Paris, Librairie du Parti socialiste, 1909. ↩︎
13. Nicolas Delalande, Les batailles de l’impôt. Consentement et résistances de 1789 à nos jours, Paris, Seuil, 2014. ↩︎
14. Se reporter en priorité à Emmanuel Jousse, Les hommes révoltés. Les origines intellectuelles du réformisme en France (1871-1917), Paris, Fayard, « Histoire », 2017. ↩︎
15. Benoît Malon, Le nouveau parti, Paris, Derveaux, 1881, préface de Jules Vallès. ↩︎
16. Édité par son journal Le Prolétaire, 1883 et 1910, republié avec une introduction de Bruno Antonini par Le Bord de l’eau (Lormont, 2011). ↩︎
17. Jules Joffrin (1846-1890) est conseiller municipal des Grandes Carrières de 1882 à 1884 et de Clignancourt de 1886 à 1889. ↩︎
18. Nathalie Droin, Aux origines du socialisme municipal : César de Paepe », Revue française d’histoire des idées politiques, n° 42, 12015/2, p. 167-198. ↩︎
19. Adeline Blaszkiewicz-Maison, Albert Thomas 1878-1932. Une histoire du réformisme social, Paris, PUF, 2024. ↩︎
20. Jaurès en recommande la lecture dans un article : « Les Cahiers du Socialiste » publié par la Revue de l’enseignement primaire et primaire supérieur, 6 juin 1909. Ils sont étudiés dans la thèse de Christophe Prochasson, dont est issu son livre Les intellectuels, le socialisme et la guerre, Paris, Seuil, 1993. ↩︎
21. Voir la notice aussi dense que précise de Nathalie Viet-Depaule sur Georges Marrane dans le Maitron. ↩︎
22. Bascule symbolique, l’ancienne circonscription de Vaillant élit en 1928 le communiste Jacques Duclos qui bat Léon Blum, député sortant et chef de file du socialisme parlementaire. ↩︎
23. Roger-Henri Guerrand et Christine Moissinac, Henri Sellier, urbaniste et réformateur social, Paris, La Découverte, 2005. ↩︎
24. Katherine Burlen (dir.), La Banlieue-oasis. Henri Sellier et les cités-jardins, Saint-Denis, Presses universitaires de Vincennes, 1987. ↩︎
25. Rémy Pech, 1925. Etienne Billières, un maire visionnaire au Capitole, Portet-sur-Garonne, Éditions midi-pyrénéennes, 2025. ↩︎
26. Fabien Guillot, André Morizet, un maire constructeur dans le Grand Paris, 1876-1942, préface de Jacques Girault, Grâne, Créaphis, 2013. ↩︎
27. Souvenir personnel : la municipalité conservatrice de ma ville de banlieue-sud refusa jusque tard dans les années 1960 l’ouverture d’une bibliothèque municipale, qui ne correspondait pas à un besoin selon le maire : les gens qui aimaient lire achetaient des livres, les autres ne souhaitaient pas de dépenses inutiles… ↩︎
28. Étienne Fajon, L’union est un combat, Paris, Éditions sociales, 1975. ↩︎
29. Ce début de l’article 1 de la Constitution de la République française dans la Constitution de 1958 comme dans la précédente de 1946 est largement connu. Accepté par tous les groupes de la Constituante, il émane à l’origine d’une proposition du communiste Étienne Fajon. Il nous semble convenir parfaitement à l’objectif commun de l’ensemble des gauches dans leur diversité comme nous avons essayé de le montrer dans Pourquoi la gauche ? de la Commune à nos jours, Paris, PUF, 2022. ↩︎

Illustrative image: "Bust of Christophe Thivrier in Commentry," photograph of October 6, 2019 by E-W (CC BY-SA 4.0)