#condorcet

In this survey, I have deliberately chosen a representative from each different faction.

On the Girondist side: Marquis de Condorcet The revolutionary who campaigned for gender equality, one of the few in his era. He is impossible not to mention in this discussion.

On the Dantonist side: Camille Desmoulins He advocated for the rights of married women to administer their property in 1793. In issue 14 of his journal Révolutions de France et de Brabant, he speaks highly of Théroigne de Méricourt and writes the following passage: "At the request of Mademoiselle Théroigne to be admitted to the district with a vote of consent, the assembly followed the president’s conclusions, thanking this excellent citizen for her motion; a canon from the Council of Mâcon having formally recognized that women have a soul and reason like men, they cannot be forbidden from making as good use of them as the speaker did; he will always make Mademoiselle Théroigne, and all women of her sex, free to propose what they believe to be advantageous to the homeland."

For the Maratist group: Jean-Paul Marat The journalist from L’Ami du Peuple often defended women who were victims of domestic violence, encouraging them to flee their homes and denounce those who abused them. Here is an excerpt from his writings found in the excellent book Madame Marat: A Heroic Life in the Turmoil of the French Revolution by Stefania di Pasquale: "Women are more inclined to tenderness than men. During their childhood, children are expected to oppose themselves to shame, but as soon as they come to the age in which women start listening to us, we hurry to conquer them and to excite their imagination; we focus all of our thoughts to unleash their senses. Hasn’t the time come to create a sweet bond with them? Men have always chosen while women have always accepted! How many foolish parents sacrifice the happiness of their daughters? Forced to yield the object of their heart forever, they become unable to love again, seeing only misfortune in their future." He also defended prostitutes.

For the Cretois group: Charles-Gilbert Romme The revolutionary mathematician, founder of the revolutionary calendar, also worked for certain women's rights. He founded a mixed club with Théroigne de Méricourt, and in a report on public education dated December 20, 1792, he advocated for girls to have access to republican schools. He made the following remark: "They should not be strangers to social virtues, since, in addition to needing them for themselves, they can develop or strengthen them in the hearts of men. If, in the natural and social order, man is called to execute and act, woman, by an imperious and necessary influence, is called to give the will a stronger and more vehement impulse." Although Romme’s feminism had limits, as seen in his statement: "The secondary schools in question are not for both sexes."

For the Robespierristes group: Georges Couthon One of the best-known members of the CPS in Year II, also spoke in favor of women's rights to share property administration in August 1793, as seen here: source. Additionally, he allowed his wife to give a speech at the Federation Festival in Clermont-Ferrand in 1790, before he gave his own speech, as seen here: source.

For the Enragés group: Jacques Roux Here is an excerpt from Markov Walter on this Enragés leader: "All the revolutionary parties tried to involve women, while, with the exception of the Enragés, they sought to exclude them from any real political activity. Jacques Roux considered them the decisive reserve of the Revolution. 'Victory was indisputable as soon as women joined the sans-culottes.'"

For the Hébertist group: Jean-Nicolas Pache This former Girondin minister of the War , who became an Hébertist and later Mayor of Paris, founded the Société patriotique du Luxembourg club, which, according to Louis Devance, "admitted women from the age of fourteen, with the same formalities as men, but their numbers could not exceed one-fifth of the total members; they were eligible for the same positions in the society, excluding the office roles."

For the Babouvist group: Gracchus Babeuf Babeuf wrote a letter in favor of gender equality to Dubois de Fosseux in 1786, as seen here: source. He supported the full participation of women in political clubs and paid tribute to the women of the French Revolution in his journal article: "Women dedicate their entire days to prevent us from starving," and said of them, "But beware, women, whom we have degraded, without whom, however, and without their courage on the 5th and 6th of October, we might not have had freedom!" He even remarked to one of his colleagues: "The advice you give us regarding the role women can play is sensible and judicious; we will take advantage of it. We know the influence that this fascinating sex can have, who, like us, cannot endure the yoke of tyranny and who are no less courageous when it comes to breaking it." He believed that the homeland had everything to gain from exploiting women’s talents in politics.

For the Thermidorian group: Armand Benoît Joseph Guffroy When he is not making false accusations against Élisabeth Le Bas or showing appalling behavior by kicking his former collaborator Marie-Anne Babeuf out after a violent argument, or writing poorly about Lucile Desmoulins and Marie-Françoise Hébert(euphemism) , one can find some quality in Guffroy's progressive views on women's rights. He wrote: "I had proposed to admit women to the primary assemblies, to deliberate on the choice of municipalities, and I still believe that my two separate ballots and my posted ballots would disturb all the conspiracies. If one is wise, one will come back to it; and I predict that we will never have a public spirit, public morals, if women do not participate in the administration as I have proposed. The National Assembly admitted to swearing the constitution, those who were in the tribune on the 4th of this month. Why would we separate them from the public good? The queen promised to raise her son in the principles of constitutional liberty; all French mothers must publicly swear this civic oath: without that, I repeat, no morals, no morals, no fatherland. Frenchmen, prove that you are men, by giving back to your wives all their dignity; French women, prove that you are worthy of giving birth to a race of free men."

Sources:

Antoine Resche

Louis Devance Le féminisme pendant la révolution française

Walter Markov

Stefania di Pasquale

Jean-Marc Schiappa

Charles-Gilbert Romme, "Rapport sur l’instruction publique, considéré dans son ensemble, suivi d’un projet de décret sur les principales bases du plan général, prononcé devant la Convention le 20 décembre 1792"

Thank you @anotherhumaninthisworld without whom I would not have been able to see the writings of Couthon, Guffroy, and Desmoulins in favor of women's rights.

Brissot de Warville, Eloise Ellery, 1915, p. 182

My emotional support problematic fave 😭😭😭

It's bad. Brissot has moved into my head like he's trying to speculate on the territory. I'm just over 200 pages into the biography (~halfway) & I have so much to say, but I'm also anticipating all my feelings being proven wrong at some point or just having to complete another Brissot is Complicated thesis when this is all over. None of my opinions on the Girondins in general, the war-mongering, the blaming the Montagnards for violence/extremism etc. have changed, and I'm interested to read past 1791 to see if anything can shift my perspectives. It's been shocking (even though I knew this abstractly) to see how close — identical basically — Brissot is to the "radical" figures. On topics like active vs. passive citizens, the king's veto, republic vs. monarchy, the colonies, etc. he has taken the same positions as Robespierre. Camille & Brissot have squabbled a bit in the press, but minorly & the author points out some places where Brissot's actual positions don't quite match up with what Camille claims (e.g. being inconsistent about a republic) (Camille v. Brissot pre-1791 probable needs its own post.) He consistently opposes more conservative revolutionaries like Mirabeau and Barnave.

Because I've gotten into a habit of of making stupid shit lol, I made a table of if I had to vote for Brissot vs. the first few revolutionaries I could think of

& honestly, this doesn't even clear things up for me. Technically, Saint-Just should probably be green, but Brissot's humanitarian efforts are really, really hard to beat. Pétion & Marat, I admit, I probably just don't know enough about. Time is also a factor. 1792-3 Saint-Just vs. 1792-3 Brissot would definitely go to Saint-Just. (I think.) But what about 1789-90 Brissot vs. 1792-4 Saint-Just? And would I really choose Robespierre over Brissot in 1789-1791? I know my knowledge of later years is coloring my opinion. But this is also a bullshit mashup election that's taking place between my head and my heart, so none of it makes sense.

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.

Mare Crisium (”The Sea of Crises”), Cleomedes crater (right), Condorcet crater (bottom left), and Firmicus crater (left) // Richard Delhoume

Coffee time ! ☕️ 🍪

“Peu m’importe qu’il y ait du sucre aux Indes, de la porcelaine à la Chine, du café en Arabie ; il faut qu’on me l’apporte.”

Condorcet