Babeuf's Republic-A Collective Timeline/Discussion

So what does it take to make revolutionary France into proto-socialist France? That's the question I want to approach here and, in the spirit of the Constitution of 1793 and Gracchus Babeuf himself (and because my own knowledge isn't the deepest on the topic) I think it can most successfully be approached as a collective timeline/discussion.

Factually by 1796, as a result of the unsuccessful economic policies of the Directory, Gracchus Babeuf (born Fracois Noel Babeuf), an egalitarian proto-socialist, had become a rising star. His claims that "nature has given to every man the right to the enjoyment of an equal share in all property" was of growing popularity, especially (albeit not exclusively) among the Parisian poor, particularly the over 500,000 in need of relief but not receiving it.

I propose our POD to be the 11 of May, 1796 and the Conspiracy of Equals. We shall assume the conspiracy did indeed exist however our specific POD is the conversion of Georges Grisel. Grisel was the key government agent responsible for infiltrating Babeuf's organization and exposed the plan for the insurrection. Should, however, we make the plausible suggestion that Grisel, after attending a number of Babeuf's meetings, was persuaded by the egalitarian arguments, especially with Grisel having observed the squalor of the Parisian proletariat under the Directory, then we can set up a situation where Grisel fictitiously reports that Babeuf and his followers pose no threat, allowing the Conspiracy of Equals to seize power, at least in Paris.

The question is where shall we go from here? The radical and Paris-centric nature of Babeuf, his movement, and his followers meant there would like be remaining pockets of influence for either the Directory or the Monarchy, especially in rural France. Do we assume a civil war, perhaps with 3 different powers, the liberal bourgeoisie, the conservative monarchy, and the egalitarian proto-socialists? Or do we accept that Babeuf, who in no way shied away from violence, would be able to combine iron-willed rule with large amounts of popularity to claim effective control of France soon after the coup? And then finally, should this be decided, what of the future of France? Chances are Babeuf would not engage in the sort of imperial conquest as Napoleon, but would other European powers attempt to intervene to stop a true radical? Or, conversely, would rebellion spread among the proletariat in other nations, as it would in 1848, only 50 years later?

And then domestic France. What does a socialist France look like?



Everyone is welcome to discuss and suggest and, if you want, present timelines of your own and from there we can build the history of a successful egalitarian left starting in the late 18th century.
 
To start, I have to say that I hate the idea that Babeuf, or his Society, or the 1793 Constutition was in any way socialist. Babeuf was a fairly die-hard revolutionary republican, which made him a far-left radical in his day, but even as soon as a century later the ideals he fought for become the center-platform of moderates. The organic statues of the Third Republic were pretty directly based upon the spirit of the Montagnard Constitution. There's not really such a thing as 'socialism' in Babeuf's time; the sociopolitical and socioeconomic pressures that created that movement simply don't exist in 1797 France.

I'm sure people with more expertise in the field will have something more to contribute, but my reading of Babeuf is that even if his uprising had been successful the most radical thing we'd see is a return to la Terreur.
 
To start, I have to say that I hate the idea that Babeuf, or his Society, or the 1793 Constutition was in any way socialist. Babeuf was a fairly die-hard revolutionary republican, which made him a far-left radical in his day, but even as soon as a century later the ideals he fought for become the center-platform of moderates. The organic statues of the Third Republic were pretty directly based upon the spirit of the Montagnard Constitution. There's not really such a thing as 'socialism' in Babeuf's time; the sociopolitical and socioeconomic pressures that created that movement simply don't exist in 1797 France.

I'm sure people with more expertise in the field will have something more to contribute, but my reading of Babeuf is that even if his uprising had been successful the most radical thing we'd see is a return to la Terreur.

While the 1793 Constitution would be considered more of a left-liberal document, Babeuf shared numerous traits with modern conceptions of socialists (thus my use of the term proto-socialist.) Perhaps this is best represented in a single phrase by the previously-quoted statement: "Nature has given to every man the right to the enjoyment of an equal share in all property." This clearly coincides with abstract socialist thought. Furthermore most of his policy suggestions came from a perspective that, if not proto-socialist, was certainly radically egalitarian.
 
It is not like there weren't the ideas or supporters in place for what could be called proto-socialist policies. The Enrages wanted to nationalize the grain supply and wanted direct democracy, did they not?
 
It is not like there weren't the ideas or supporters in place for what could be called proto-socialist policies. The Enrages wanted to nationalize the grain supply and wanted direct democracy, did they not?

Indeed, the French Revolution, in fact, generated much of the early impetus for proto-socialism.
 

OS fan

Banned
Before something like this could happen, you would have to decide why the people who profited from the revolution (don't forget, many goods formerly owned by noblemen, the church and other "anti-revolutionaries" were confiscated and went to someone, often for a good price) would not object to this. The reason rich people could survive in revolutionary France was easy to see: Jacobins were not completely beyond accepting bribes.
 
Before something like this could happen, you would have to decide why the people who profited from the revolution (don't forget, many goods formerly owned by noblemen, the church and other "anti-revolutionaries" were confiscated and went to someone, often for a good price) would not object to this. The reason rich people could survive in revolutionary France was easy to see: Jacobins were not completely beyond accepting bribes.
This is yet another reason I mentioned the possibility of civil war. Babeuf, at least to me, was a purist and radical and I doubt he would have readily accepted to burgeoning bourgeoisie into his fold. However if push came to shove doubtlessly people overcome money every time.
 
Seeking to nationalize the grain would certainly make this a non-starter, but in terms of wanting to institute Democracy as it was understood at that time, the Parisian mobs/National Guard could perhaps forge a coalition with the provincial French against the central government.
 
Top