巴黎公社（法語：Commune de Paris，发音：[kɔmyn də paʁi]）是一个在共和历79年风月27日（格里历1871年3月18日，正式成立的日期为同年的3月28日）到牧月8日（5月28日），统治巴黎并且宣布要接管法国全境的政府。[1]由于公社卫队杀了两名法国将军，加上公社拒绝接受法国当局的管理，最终导致了被称为“流血周”的严厉镇压。[2]由于评论者意识形态的不同，对公社的描述存在很大分歧，资本主义者或中間派认为它是无政府主义；而社会主义者则认为它是社会主义的早期实验；更有人认为巴黎公社標誌當代世界政治左翼運動崛起與光輝起始里程碑，影響廣大深遠。俄罗斯无政府主义之父巴枯寧认为公社既没有依赖于一个先锋队，也没有掌控国家或者企图建立一个新的革命政府，所以它实际上还是无政府主义。但马克思认为公社是对其国家理论的一个有力证明，因为巴黎公社建立了镇压资产阶级的军队[3]。馬克思派史學家認為巴黎公社為1917年俄國革命的先驅[4]。
由于国民自卫军中央委员会采取了一种更加激进的姿态，权威也稳定地增长，政府感到不能无限期地允许它自由支配那400多门大炮。于是，作为第一步，在3月18日，梯也尔命令正规军去夺取存放在蒙马特尔高地及全城其它地方的大炮。士气低落的士兵们不但没有执行命令，反而与国民自卫军和当地居民亲如兄弟。蒙马特尔的克劳德·勒孔特（英语：Claude Lecomte）将军被人从马上拉了下来，后来有人作证说他曾命令士兵们向国民自卫军和市民人群开枪，于是被枪毙，同时被处决的还有从附近抓来的一名共和国老兵雅克·莱昂纳尔·克莱芒-托马（英语：Jacques Leon Clément-Thomas）将军，由于他曾担任过国民自卫军的前任指挥官而为人所痛恨。
公社曾经于1871年4月5日颁布过一个“人质法令”，按照该法令，任何凡尔赛军的帮凶都将成为“巴黎人民的人质”，第5条更进一步指出，任何被凡尔赛军处决的战俘或巴黎公社正规政府的游击队员，都将导致三倍的人质被处决。但这一法令实际并没有执行。巴黎公社曾经数次试图用巴黎总主教乔治·达尔布瓦来交换路易·奥古斯特·布朗基，但都被阿道夫·梯也尔断然拒绝，他的私人秘书巴塞洛缪·圣-希莱尔（英语：Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire）宣称：“活该他们倒楣（tant pis pour eux!）”。公社也作过其它谈判尝试，提议以它控制的全部74名人质来交换布朗基，但也都失败了。最后，在流血周及随后的凡尔赛军的大处决中，泰奥菲尔·费雷（Théophile Ferré）签发了6名人质（包括乔治·达尔布瓦总主教）的处决令，他们于5月24日在火箭监狱被一个班的士兵枪决。奥古斯特·维莫莱尔（英语：Auguste Vermore）嘲讽此事（也许是出于幼稚，因为梯也尔已经拒绝了任何谈判）说：“多么漂亮的工作！现在我们已经失去了唯一能制止流血的机会。”泰奥菲尔·费雷本人在梯也尔军队随后展开的报复行动中被处决。[8][9]
共产主义者，左翼社会主义者，无政府主义者以及其他人把巴黎公社视为解放社会的原型或者预示，因为它的政治系统是基于包括草根阶层在内的人人参与的民主（participatory democracy）。马克思和恩格斯，巴枯宁，以及后来的列宁和托洛茨基都试图从巴黎公社很有限的经验中吸取理论上的教训（特别是关于“无产阶级专政”和“政权消逝（withering away of the state）”）。更加务实的教训出自一名记者爱德蒙·德·龚古尔之手，他在流血周三天之后写道：“…血腥镇压非常彻底，像这样杀死所有敢于反抗者的流血事件，将推迟下一次革命爆发的时间…旧社会至少为自己又争取到了二十年的和平时间…”
"In March 1871 the Commune took power in the abandoned city and held it for two months. Then Versailles seized the moment to attack and, in one horrifying week, executed roughly 20,000 Communards or suspected sympathizers, a number higher than those killed in the recent war or during Robespierre’s‘Terror’of 1793–94. More than 7,500 were jailed or deported to places like New Caledonia. Thousands of others fled to Belgium, England, Italy, Spain and the United States. In 1872, stringent laws were passed that ruled out all possibilities of organizing on the left. Not till 1880 was there a general amnesty for exiled and imprisoned Communards. Meantime, the Third Republic found itself strong enough to renew and reinforce Louis Napoleon’s imperialist expansion—in Indochina, Africa, and Oceania. Many of France's leading intellectuals and artists had participated in the Commune（Courbet was its quasi-minister of culture, Rimbaud and Pissarro were active propagandists）or were sympathetic to it. The ferocious repression of 1871 and after was probably the key factor in alienating these milieux from the Third Republic and stirring their sympathy for its victims at home and abroad."
^Estimates come from Cobban, Alfred. A History of Modern France. Vol 3: 1871–1962. Penguin books, London: 1965. Pg. 23.
^Lenin, Vladimir I. Lenin: Lessons of the Commune. [2022-11-04]. （原始内容存档于2011-09-27）., Marxists Internet Archive. Originally published: Zagranichnaya Gazeta, No. March 2, 23, 1908. Translated by Bernard Isaacs. Accessed August 7, 2006.
But two mistakes destroyed the fruits of the splendid victory. The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of setting about "expropriating the expropriators", it allowed itself to be led astray by dreams of establishing a higher justice in the country united by a common national task; such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over, and Proudhonist theories about a "just exchange", etc., still prevailed among the socialists. The second mistake was excessive magnanimity on the part of the proletariat: instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them; it underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war, and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May.
…Mindful of the lessons of the Commune, it [the Russian proletariat] knew that the proletariat should not ignore peaceful methods of struggle—they serve its ordinary, day-to-day interests, they are necessary in periods of preparation for revolution—but it must never forget that in certain conditions the class struggle assumes the form of armed conflict and civil war; there are times when the interests of the proletariat call for ruthless extermination of its enemies in open armed clashes.
^Eye-witness accounts quoted in 'Paris under Siege' by Joanna Richardson (see bibliography)
^Robert Tombs, The War Against Paris: 1871, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 272 pages ISBN 978-0-521-28784-5
^Gay Gullickson, Unruly Women of Paris, Cornell Univ Press, 1996, 304 pages ISBN 978-0-8014-8318-9>
^Lissagaray, Prosper-Olivier. History of the Paris Commune of 1871. London: Verso. 2012 (1876): 277–278.请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
^Katz, Philip M. 1998. From Appomattox to Montmartre: Americans and the Paris Commune P.48
