Do modern historians think of that quote as a valid analysis of the French Revolution or just a random musing of a non-historian layman?
Check out this article. It looks like Mr. Enlai's was referring to the political changes in France in 1968, not 1789.
If he was talking about 1789, he is expressing the interesting and not necessarily incorrect viewpoint that we cannot entirely predict how historical events will affect those that follow, even for a long time afterward.
It's an interesting position from which to approach historical studies, but I don't think you are going to find a modern, working historian who isn't going to try and delve more deeply into the subject and find some kind of provable thesis. Mr. Enlai's comment, in its popular understanding, is a short-circuiting of historical analysis.