Until 60 years ago, the Marxist interpretation of the origins of the French Revolution was the most widely accepted in society – so widely accepted that it was often called the classic interpretation. Using this interpretation, the revolution was seen as the result of the classic Marxist struggle of a rising bourgeoisie. At this time in France, it was believed that wage earners had become disillusioned as it became more evident that they had growing economic influence that could not be reflected in the constraints of the Ancien Régime. Albert Soboul also recognized the importance of the working classes in his 1968 publication "Les Sans-Culottes" where it was expressed that life was difficult for peasants who had suffered poor harvests in 1787 and 1789. Examples by which the bourgeoisie could not influence the tax system of France can be seen by the Assembly of Notables on February 22, 1789. Then the controller of general finances (Charles Calonne) urged those who benefited from tax exemptions on the need to financial reform to improve France's disastrous financial situation. and that they must either accept new taxation or give up their old tax exemptions, but they have instead refused to do so. Many historians believe that if his proposals had been accepted, France might have been able to climb the ladder of economic recovery, but without having representation from the 2nd or 3rd power, the decision was inevitable because the nobility wanted to choose what was best for her. them instead of better for the country as a whole. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe Marxist historical interpretation can be considered correct because of its recognition of the discontent of the bourgeoisie with the limitations that the Ancient Regime imposed on them, led them to defy the monarchy and higher authority. This can be considered particularly credible due to the fact that the urban population grew more rapidly before the revolution and that in 1989 there were around 30 cities in France whose population exceeded 150,000 inhabitants. However, the main flaw of the Marxist interpretation is its oversimplification, which consists of arguing the causes of the revolution solely from this single factor. George Taylor (a revisionist historian) suggests that interpretation is "buried in the graveyard of lost paradigms murdered by critical scholarship", which many would consider largely true. Criticisms from revisionists directly challenged this doctrinal approach by pointing out that certain "enlightened elites" were "actively promoting the political and economic modernization of France" and were in alignment with the desires of the bourgeoisie rather than in opposition. The revisionist view, alongside the fact that "the richest and poorest individual members of post-revolutionary society were undoubtedly from noble backgrounds", discredits the Marxists' idea that the revolution was caused solely through class conflict or led the bourgeoisie to triumph over the nobles. Moreover, historian Alfred Cobban “established that change in history is never the product of clearly defined class interests.” Although his interpretation goes a long way toward discrediting the Marxist interpretation, its drawback is that it does not offer an original interpretation to challenge it, but rather simply belittles the Marxist view without anything else. On the contrary, this »..