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 classical interpretation. Using this interpretation, the revolution was seen as the result of the classic Marxist struggle of a rising bourgeoisie. During this period, in France, wage earners were believed to have become disillusioned when it was more evident that they had growing economic influence that could not be reflected under the constraints of the Old Regime. Albert Soboul also recognized the importance of the lower classes in his 1968 publication "The Sans-Culottes", which expressed that life was difficult for peasants who had had bad harvests in 1787 and 1789. Examples where the bourgeoisie failed to influence the French tax system can be seen from the Assembly of Notables on 22 February 1789. Then the controller of general finances (Charles Calonne) urged those who enjoyed tax exemptions on the need for financial reform to improve France's dire financial difficulties and that they had to accept new taxation or give up their previous tax exemptions but instead refused to do so. Many historians believe that if his proposals had been accepted, France could have moved up the ladder of economic recovery, but without having representatives of either the 2nd or 3rd estate, the decision was inevitable as the nobility wanted to choose what was best for them rather than what is best for the country as a whole. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe Marxist historical interpretation can be considered correct because it recognizes how the bourgeoisie's discontent with the limitations imposed by the Ancien Regime led them to challenge the monarchy and higher authority. It can be considered particularly credible because the urban population grew most rapidly in the period before the revolution and 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 in claiming that the causes of the revolution are based only on this factor. George Taylor (a revisionist historian) suggests that the interpretation is "buried in the graveyard of lost paradigms murdered by critical research" which many would consider largely true. Criticisms from revisionists directly challenged this doctrinal approach by highlighting that some "enlightened elites" were "actively promoting the political and economic modernization of France" and were in line with the desires of the bourgeoisie rather than in opposition. The revisionist view, together with the fact that "the richest and most mousy individual members of post-revolutionary society undoubtedly came from noble backgrounds", discredits the Marxists' idea that the revolution was caused exclusively by class conflict or brought the bourgeoisie to triumph over the nobles. Beyond this, historian Alfred Cobban "established that change in history is never the product of well-defined class interests." While his interpretation does much to discredit the Marxist interpretation, its flaw is that it does not offer an original interpretation to challenge it, as instead it simply belittles the Marxist view without anything else. In contrast, this outlines the strengths of neorevisionist interpretation which tends to focus on political facts as ways of understanding the causes of the French Revolution. Having said that, it must be considered that the focus of post-revisionism is not only on.