These statements of Péguy are supported by active actions. He participated in the creation of the magazine Revue du Palais, later renamed the Grand Revue. Campaigning for subscribers, he calls this publication a "true journal" and hopes for its significant contribution to the formation of "socialist philosophy." [27]

On May 14, 1897, Péguy created the "Circle for the Study and Propaganda of Socialism for Students and Former Students" at the École Normale Supérieure. Such circles were supposed to be created both in Paris and in the provinces. The declaration of the circle states, in particular: "We want to spread scientific socialism, based on three foundations: the study of reality both in the past and in the present; a sense of justice and a sense of solidarity between like-minded citizens; national socialism, as it relates to the democratic traditions of the French Revolution and the great popular movements of that century; and international socialism, since it pursues the interests not only of France, but of all mankind... We appeal to socialists as well as to those who, being ill-informed, hesitate in their choices..." [28] The circle was formed around the journal Revue Socialist, whose program from May 1894 (when Georges Renard became director of the magazine) began to have a reformist-socialist character. From February 1897 to February 1898, he published a number of articles in which, in one way or another, the issues of the structure of socialist society were touched upon.

Baudouin and Péguy's youthful dreams of a world socialist republic were embodied in one of Péguy's first major artistic and philosophical works entitled "Marseille, or the First Dialogue on the City of Harmony". This work is a tribute to the memory and love of a deceased friend, who forever remained "the great friendly affection of Péguy".

On June 7, 1896, during their last meeting, the friends discussed the structure of the City of Harmony. On July 25 of the same year, M. Baudouin died, and Marseille was completed in 1898, but was dated 1896 (the year of Marcel Baudouin's death). It was published under the pseudonym Pierre Baudouin. Marcel Péguy in the article preceding the Dialogue (1973 edition) believes (and provides a number of proofs for this) that Marseille is nothing more than Péguy's embodiment of his deceased friend's plan, that is, that the City of Harmony is the brainchild of M. Baudouin. In Péguy's papers, 5 cover layouts were found with titles respectively: "Henri, Dialogue de l'individu" (Henri, Dialogue de l'individu), "Vincent, Dialogue de la cité", "Jacques, Dialogue de la cité juste" (Jacques, Dialogue de la cité juste), "Jean, Dialogue on the City of Mercy" (Jean. Dialogue de la cité charitable) and, finally, "Marcel, Deuxième dialogue de la cité harmonieuse" (Marcel, the Second Dialogue on the City of Harmony), dated 1898 and subtitled "On Action for the City". These models seem to testify to Péguy's plans, and if the First Dialogue on the City of Harmony belonged to his friend, then the Second was to be Péguy's own work, and, given the subtitle and the previous four dialogues, he did not have in mind a utopia, but a consistent path of social reconstruction of society. Unfortunately, no trace of Péguy's work on these five dialogues has been found. We can only compare the "City of Harmony" with the "City of Socialism". The article "On the City of Socialism" (De la cité socialiste) was published by Péguy in the journal Revue Socialist in August 1897 under the pseudonym Pierre Deloire. This article is much more modest than the "Dialogue" not only in terms of volume, but also in terms of the scale of the tasks that the author sets for the builders of his City.

The dialogue does not concern the political organization of society, it touches very little on the economic and material aspects of the issue. Basically, we are talking about the spiritual and intellectual development of citizens. Conventionally, "Dialogue" can be divided into several sections, in which Leahi consistently describes the moral laws that govern different aspects of society.

Perhaps Marcel Péguy is right when he asserts that the idea of the City of Harmony belongs to Marcel Baudouin. There is no doubt, however, that as a work of fiction the Dialogue is entirely Péguy's creation. This is evidenced by his style, Péguy's characteristic style, which can never be confused with anyone else's. Endless repetitions create the impression of a tight ball. Péguy does not let the reader forget for a second what is most important to him. All sections are linked together by these basic ideas. Everything begins and ends at one point.

Many years later, Péguy, who had lost many illusions and abandoned utopias, would not forget his City. We will find this word more than once in his works. And it will always mean a community of people united by moral ideals.

When we get acquainted with the City of Harmony and add to this Péguy's statement that "the social revolution will be moral or there will be no revolution at all," [29] we see how romantic his idea of socialism was. The romantic maximalism of the young Péguy forced him to perceive socialism as a City of Harmony with the priority of the moral principle. This is an extremely important point for Péguy's life and literary conception – the main thing that distinguished Péguy, Baudouin and their circle from other socialists, for example, Jaurès. Not without the influence of Bergson, Péguy asserted that true revolution "boils down mainly to a deeper penetration into the inexhaustible reserves of inner life, so that the greatest men of revolutionary action are those who possess a supremely rich inner life, they are dreamers and contemplatives." [30]

These ideas were very far from the true state of affairs. This is how Rolland describes the congress of the Socialist Party in 1900: "If the enemy camp interrupted the speaker's speech, then the adherents of the latter raised a terrible noise to restore silence; Then a torrent of colorless abuse flooded the entire hall. All day long, from nine in the morning to six in the evening, the hall was like a kennel full of growling dogs: bloodshot faces, threatening fists, outstretched hands, just like those of the "Horatii" and "Curiatii"... to the right and to the left, the corrupt charlatans of the Socialist Party, such as the famous Edward, the director of the Matin newspaper, took off their frock coats to look like workers." [31] Yes, it was least of all like a friendly assembly of like-minded people, "dreamers and contemplatives." It was politics. For Péguy, the revolution was never a political coup. In his mind, it was not a break with tradition; it was a rebirth, an expression of the vitality of tradition, "a path that leads to Christ and not to death." [32] From this it is clear what bitter disappointments Péguy must have experienced when confronted with real historical events, which, if not completely destroyed, at least significantly shook the very foundations of his socialism, a moral, not a political socialism.

The first and deepest disappointment befell Péguy in connection with the events connected with the Dreyfus affair, which became the most important stage of his life.

Péguy was finishing his studies at the École Normale when Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer of the French General Staff, was arrested on charges of spying for Germany. The reason for the accusation was an inventory of documents (the so-called "bordereau") about the state of the French artillery, found by a maid, an agent of the French counterintelligence, in the German General Staff and transferred to the French counterintelligence. There was no clear evidence that these documents were drawn up by Dreyfus. Colonel Henri testified against him, but a comparison of the handwriting showed nothing. Nevertheless, Dreyfus was demoted, and in 1894 he was sentenced by a military court to life imprisonment on Devil's Island (Guiana). In 1896, the head of the French counter-intelligence, Colonel Piccard, learned that Major Esterhazy, an officer of the French General Staff, was in constant contact with the officers of the German General Staff, and established his guilt. Dreyfus's brother, Mathieu, also sent a letter to the military authorities arguing for Esterhazy's guilt. In the Chamber of Deputies, inquiries were made by the government, but Esterhazy, who enjoyed the support of the generals, was fully acquitted by the military court, and Colonel Piccard, who continued to fight for the acquittal of Dreyfus, was persecuted and dismissed from military service in 1898. On January 13, 1898, Émile Zola published an open letter to the President of the Republic in the republican-socialist newspaper Aurore - the famous "I accuse". The letter and the subsequent trial of Zola himself were like an exploding bomb. A broad wave of protest arose from the progressive public, demanding a review of the case. France was divided into Dreyfusards and Anti-Dreyfusards. Finally, in 1898, after the flight and confession of Esterhazy and the proof of the forgery fabricated by Colonel Henri, a review of the case becomes inevitable. Dreyfus was asked to file a petition for pardon. In the autumn of 1899, a military court met again in Rennes, which issued a pardon order, which, of course, could not satisfy the Dreyfusards. Only on July 12, 1906, the Court of Cassation issued a verdict on the erroneous conviction of Dreyfus. He was restored in his rights, and he again became an officer of the French army.

The fact of Dreyfus's unjust conviction was the key point around which a major political crisis broke out in France, which put the country on the verge of civil war. The very fact that Dreyfus was condemned at the direct request of monarchists, clerics and anti-Semites made the unfolding struggle for a review of his case a major political event, since under the slogan of "reconsideration" a movement began to unfold directed not only against the reactionary military clique, but also hostile to the whole state. Very soon, after several unsuccessful attempts at an armed coup on the part of the monarchists, the ruling circles tried to reduce the whole affair to a particular question of the fate of Dreyfus himself and, in order to finally eliminate the conflict, agreed not only to pardon Dreyfus, but also to launch a noisy campaign against the Catholic Church.

A passionate Dreyfusard, Péguy participated in the unfolding struggle with fury and passion. He was inspired by the opportunity to fight for justice, to take part in the "battle of the century" in the same formation with his like-minded people. The feeling of friendship and like-mindedness was extremely important for Péguy. Friendship was one of the ties with the world, a path that inevitably had to merge with many others and lead to a common path. The joint struggle filled his life not only with meaning, but with a sense of high purpose. However, as it turned out later, this feeling was not shared by all his friends. And when the government reduced the broad protest movement to disputes in private litigation, it became clear that there was no united front of like-minded people, since their goals, in fact, were different. Péguy was fighting for justice and for the City of Harmony, and his Socialist friends saw a very different goal: they were already dividing ministerial portfolios. This situation was perfectly understood and described by A. V. Lunacharsky: "All the Pegists were pure democratic socialists at that time. But they recoiled in horror from their victorious friends when they saw that most of these comrades-in-arms had fought under the banner of truth only to repel the enemy from the public pie and join him with even more unbridled insolence and with a still more greedy appetite before the eyes of the hungry masses." [33] Péguy, with his characteristic uncompromising attitude, turned his back on his former teachers and idols, including his friend and ideological mentor Lucien Herr, and even Jean Jaurès, whom he admired.

This first encounter of Péguy with politics determined his future position as a man standing outside factions and parties. His accusations against politics will sound somewhat unusual in the future, but comprehensive, because the writer believes that politics is separated from mysticism, the creeping empiricism of politics does not allow it to raise its eyes to heaven, it is devoid of a transcendental principle, politics inevitably leads to a struggle for power. Curiously, Péguy's position can be explained from the point of view of his Russian contemporary, the philosopher of the older generation, Vl. Solovyov.