#babeuf

I'm not sure what kind of "top moments" you're referring to — serious, interesting, or funny — so let’s go with the moments I found the most amusing:

5) Before the Revolution, to please a women he knew very well, Madame Hullin, Babeuf let her tie ribbons in his hair. He would occasionally recall this memory during the Revolution — mostly to mock the police officers sent to catch him who continually failed.

4)Babeuf attended the Festival of the Federation on July 14, 1790, at the Champ de Mars. Upon seeing Lafayette, he later remarked: “I used to respect this man when I saw him through a lens. Seeing him up close, I abhor him.” He even confronted him, calling him a “vile slave.”

3)In a letter to his wife dated September 9, 1789 (https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/782513239854628864/does-marie-anne-babeuf-enjoy-smoking-with-a-silver?source=share), he recounts: “I recently saw the carriage of the Marquis de Soyecourt, with him inside. I was suddenly seized by the urge to say something to him. I ran toward the door; he looked shocked, even frightened. I stood in front of the horses and shouted at the coachman to stop, but the marquis motioned him to speed up, even at the risk of running me over.” Apparently, the Marquis had a gift for foresight, since Babeuf wasn’t even well-known at that time (especially not the way he would be after Thermidor). Why so scared?

2)His sense of humor, even in the worst moments — including while on the run. Jean-Marc Schiappa describes in issue 36 of Le Tribun du Peuple (20 Frimaire) how "Babeuf applied the revolutionary principle of “resistance to oppression” by punching an alzaguil (a term used by Marat in 1790 to support Babeuf, though Babeuf had already used it again in Year III). After escaping, he was pursued by an agent shouting, “Stop thief!” Even then, Babeuf joked that he must have looked like a thief because he had lost his cravat. He was arrested by crowds three times near Rue Honoré, in front of the Church of the Assumption — and released each time when he simply said his name. The brave workers at the Halles, who were stocking food supplies, were the last to stop him. But once they knew who he was, they protected his retreat". Later, in Year III, during yet another harsh imprisonment (arguably the second worst he endured), Babeuf and fellow prisoners like Charles Germain figured out which types of letters the prison authorities read and which they ignored. Between calculated outbursts and conversations, they wrote both sincere and strategic letters to family — and sometimes poked fun at the prison system. For instance, Germain once wrote in a letter he knew would be read: “our concierge, a man of honor and integrity.” Babeuf, amused, joined in, no doubt adding his own sarcastic touches.

1)What people often called Babeuf’s “naïveté” was actually a tool he used to uncover the true thoughts of those around him. He often feigned ignorance, staying quiet about his own views to learn more about others . He would even pretend to be stupid so that his opponents would lower their guard — and then strike. In a letter to his friend Thibaudeau, he explained that he would write to Fréron and Tallien, and had even sent his wife to try to manipulate Guffroy after their political break (though it didn’t work — Guffroy didn’t fall for it). He also briefly reconnected with Dubois de Fosseux despite their prior fallout. He even sent a fake friendly letter to Fouché during the Prairial insurrection (all signs point to it being a trap), only to laugh about it with Germain months later, after Fouché was indicted (although he had gone into hiding) . Even Fouché remained cautious — as Babeuf noted in his journal, Fouché never replied directly. So the tension and mistrust between them ran deep. But ultimately, Fouché did fall into the trap that Antonelle, Babeuf, and Bouin Mathurin set to damage his reputation. I can only imagine how entertaining it must’ve been for Babeuf to watch Fouché and Guffroy wonder whether he was actually stupid or just pretending — all while Babeuf, internally impatient, wondered how much longer he had to keep playing the fool to stay believable. This little farce lasted for months. The downside for Babeuf is that his tactic left him with a lasting (but undeserved) reputation as an idiot — something he clearly was not. Some people even mistakenly believe Tallien was more effective than him.

I'm sorry it took me so long, I barely see my tray.

I think it would be relevant to define "proto-socialism" or better known as Utopian Socialism.

They are considered this way because they are prior to Marx/Engels and their socialist theory in a more precise and clean way (to the point of becoming a social science)

In "Marx and His Political Influences” (Alonso, José Nueva Antropología, Vol. VI. No. 23, México 1984)

[...] he delved into the utopian perspectives of Moro, Bacon, Saint Just, Babeuf, Fourier, Saint Simon, and Owen.

Or from the Gironde:

He drew "on Condorcet's ideas about the inevitability of violence in the process of evolution and the necessity of revolution".

—Palerm, Angel (1976) Historia de la etnologia: los evolucionistas, op. cit., p. 37.

The currents of utopian socialists go back further than the French Revolution itself (although the utopian current in France developed quite a bit during this time, it did not originate here, nor even directly in Europe). Most (if not all) revolutionaries had thoughts on economic issues.

Saint Just is not the only case. Although Saint Just was the first to formally propose the Vêntose laws, which speak of a distribution of property and wealth (virtually stagnant) by the "foreigners" of the French people (in this case, the nobles).

Although Saint Just's economic theories are not his strong suit (perhaps if he had lived longer he could have developed a more economic thought), what is, and is interesting to interpret, is that Saint Just can be considered one of the first to propose a social revolution beyond politics. (The main point for which Hannah Arendt criticizes him in the section "On Society").

Therefore, Saint Just's fortress would not be a utopian socialist thought, but his thought on morality and society. Marx would later call this the class struggle (expanding the concept, of course).

«In the words of Marx and Engels: "Saint Just and Robespierre were authentic representatives of the revolutionary forces, that is, of the only truly revolutionary class: the countless mass"»

—LOGOS. Anales del Seminario de Metafísica, Aguilar, Vol. 46 (2013): 377-434.

——————

Robespierre is also one of the first to criticize capitalism as a serious problem in his speeches. Therefore, he also falls into this current of utopian socialists.

Marx had an interesting opinion about Saint Just and Robespierre, since despite having judged them as archaic who hoped to incorporate a Roman republican system based on slavery in an era in full modernization, even so for Marx and Engels they represented the revolutionary spirit, which would not resurface until a better system according to them: The commune of Paris.

Marx, still did not have Marxist historians (haha) or revisionist historians, nor a complete plan of Robespierre's speeches, much less of Saint Just's theories. Therefore, its main source was most likely Jules Michelet. Since this review that I have attached to "The Holy Family" is from 1841.

In addition, the Marxist analysis had erroneously based on Hegel's incomplete perspective, based on correspondence he maintained with Fitche (highly influenced by speeches by Saint Just), prior to the publication of Sobboul's critical edition of the complete works of Saint Just in 1951. Even prior to his essay on civil law.

I am here, suffering physically, but above all psychologically, beside my friend Darthé, who is dying. We have both just been condemned to death, as we expected. But how hard it is, especially to witness the future of the revolution becoming more and more uncertain, we who tried to save it through this Conspiracy, through this dialogue rejected by certain members of the Directory. We have been thwarted by scoundrels like this Judas Grisel, who betrayed us not out of conviction, but because he sought personal gain and that infamous Cochon. Buonarroti and I are certain that this vile Barras took part in this St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of patriots. I would give anything to see my children one last time—my son Émile, my little comrade, my fanfinot, my fragile Camille, whose condition deeply worries me, and my newborn Caius, whom I will never see grow up—but also my dear and beloved friend Marie-Anne, my wife who has brought me so much joy and has supported me even through the worst persecutions she shared with me. Yet, this simple request has been denied. I hope that they will now have a better fate than they have ever known, and that our sons will not suffer the same tragic fate that our dear daughters endured. I would have given anything to live longer, if only for them, but I must pay the price that so many honorable revolutionaries have paid before us. My sadness is eased by the presence of my loyal friends. Buonarroti, who tried to save us by addressing the crowd, indifferent to his own fate as a deportee, and Charles Germain, condemned to deportation, this cheerful companion who disregards the dreadful problems worse than ours but still continues to comfort us and refuses to give up. They are here, loyal companions, lifting our spirits before Darthé and I follow the fatal path of so many good revolutionaries who came before us, such as Robespierre and Saint-Just. My comrade Félix Le Peletier promised to take care of my family, and I can only trust him, knowing his character. Likewise, Hésine and Antonelle have never abandoned us and are now free. They will inspire other patriotic men and women and will continue the revolutionary battles that we initiated. Before our passage to the scaffold, I will have all the time in the world to answer your questions and remarks.

Laura Mason, The Last Revolutionaries: The Conspiracy Trial of Gracchus Babeuf and the Equals, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2022. xi + 304 pp. $35.00 U.S. (hb). ISBN 9780300259551. Compte rendu par Sophie Wahnich, CNRS