Talk:François-Noël Babeuf

Death date
has "On Prairial 7 (26th of April 1797) Babeuf and Darth were condemned to death; some of the prisoners, including Buonarroti, were exiled; the rest, including Vadier and his fellow-conventionals, were acquitted. Drouet had succeeded in making his escape, according to Barras, with the connivance of the Directory. Babeuf and Darth were executed at Vendme on Prairial 8 (1797)." This would give a death date of April 27. However, it looks like they were off by a month in their interpretation of the French Republican calendar and May 27, the date inserted by User:Arcturus, is correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

This article seems incorrect
This article seems incorrect: it tells about a bloodthirsty François-Noël Babeuf, which doesn't fit well with the texts written by him on www.marxists.org. He says to the men in power: "You will be overwhelmed, and afterwards ask yourselves: What!". If he really was that bloodthirsty, how could they ask themselves questions after being deposed? I propose we rewrite it slowly according to historical sources, so that the material from Encyclopedia Britannica is removed. Material from other encyclopediae may be used as an initial draft, but because of their political bias and secondary source character, primary historical research is to be preferred. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides: the one and only true NPOV exists on Wikipedia only (if anywhere at all!). Amen!! Said: Rursus ☻ 15:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More, the article says, f.ex.:
 * In the circumstances it is not surprising that he became a malcontent.
 * It is not up to Wikipedia to evaluate motives, just to refer to historicians that interpret his motives that way. In Britannica such a subjective statement would have been OK - not here! Said: Rursus ☻ 17:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Babeuf did indeed call for a repeat of the September Massacres (this time around they'd have to be more thorough). "Bloodthirsty" seems pretty accurate. Just because the man held all the proper ideas about income redistribution doesn't mean he wasn't violent. In fact, the justification for the Terror was that it was needed in order to construct a "Republic of Virtue". 71.131.23.199 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious affiliation?
Was he religious or not? 71.253.97.230 (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here for asking feeble questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.252.243 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Although the words "anarchist", "socialist" and "communist" did not exist in Babeuf's lifetime
term Socialist appears in 1738, in the book: Scotch Presbyterian eloquence display'd By Gilbert Crokatt, John Monroe, page 69. any objection to me correcting this error? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You would need to find a book about Babeuf that makes the same conclusions you do. However you are unlikely to find one because Crokatt and Monroe were not writing about "socialism".  TFD (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the text in the article uses the word socialist, as does the book, not socialism.  i am not making conclusions, rather disputing a good faith error, with a fact from a RS.  proof the word did exist, here it is in print.  Darkstar1st (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You need a reliable secondary source, otherwise it is just original research based on a primary source. TFD (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * i am not presenting material to be included, so it cant be OR. i have proved an un-sourced passage is incorrect by providing a fact.  original research would require some comment on said fact by myself.  the claim is the word did not exist, my RS proves it did, no secondary source needed.  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to be unable to understanding the sourcing policy to you and anticipate that further attempts will be futile. TFD (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * then i will tag inaccurate unsourced text. if you have source(i looked and found none) plz revert and add source.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the Communist sidebar. Babeuf was deeply concerned with equality; this may be the most significant aspect of his life; nevertheless neither the Communist Party, nor even the International Working Men's Association, existed during his lifetime. He is a figure of the French Revolution, which preceded Communism or even pre-Marxist, Utopian Socialism. Putting a big hammer and sickle on his page is deeply misleading in this sense. It might be worthwhile considering whether he should be removed from the Category, figures of the French Communist Party. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously Babeuf couldn't have been a "Communist" in the sense of being a Marxist, but to say he could not have been a "small-c" communist is erroneous. Pretty much anyone would consider Adam Smith a supporter of capitalism even though the term was not used in his day. Similarly, there have been plenty of persons since the 16th century who advocated or at least wrote about abolishing private property in favor of the community producing and distributing goods on the basis of needs. In this regard Babeuf had already been preceded by Étienne-Gabriel Morelly and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, both of whom he read and both of whom are often considered examples of utopian, pre-Marxist communism. --Ismail (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Philippe Buonarroti on Babeuf
I've read it claimed by some that Philippe Buonarroti deliberately misrepresented Babeuf in his books about him, and distorted how he's viewed to this day. The main claim comes down to Philippe Buonarroti wanting to make Babeuf like himself a follower or Robespeirre, while he was really an ally of the enemies of Robespierre like Bonneville and Brisiot. But I'm unsure about the reliability of such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.233.157 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Babeufism
No mention of Babeufism? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Was he really a "Utopian socialist" ?
He was a openly advocating for a complete revolution and the complete changes to social structures, that isn't the case with "utopian socialists" (thats the origin of the term, as marxists thought that a revoluton was required for socialism and communism) the label doesn't fit him The basque savior (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)