This week, ending in June 09 2016:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Here and there in the sub I've seen mentioned that the classical Marxist explanation of the French bourgeoisie fighting the French Revolution against backwards aristocrats is wrong. The idea being that the protagonism usually given to the French bourgeoisie, as well as the supposedly feudalistic nature of the aristocracy, is a mistake.
I'm reading volume III of Wallerstein's series on World-Systems and he says the same thing, but mostly refers to the work of others and doesn't give a detailed explanation.
The basic points I got were:
The economy was more capitalistic than feudalistic at that point.
The feudalistic nature of the economic relations of the aristocracy is greatly exaggerated.
The protagonism of the bourgeoisie is somehow blown out of proportion? At least the urban bourgeoisie. The real winners were the peasantry.