IndexIntroductionConclusionPrimary sources:IntroductionRevolutions are social and political movements in which a population rebels against dominant institutions in order to overthrow them and implement a new political and/or social system. This usually happens when the population perceives itself as oppressed and/or that the current institution in power is incompetent in governing the population. History is full of revolutions that occurred in many different countries, some of the most famous revolutions being the American Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution. But among these historic political uprisings, one of the most iconic revolutions is the French Revolution. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe French Revolution encompasses a period of radical social and political change, beginning on May 5, 1789 with the Estates General and ending on November 9, 1799 with the formation of the French consulate. At the time of the revolution France was under the rule of King Louis XVI, who was the last king to rule France before the fall of the French monarchy. So what would be an effective thesis for an essay on the cause of the French Revolution? I'll tell you. Many people believe that the revolution occurred due to the incompetence of King Louis XVI, and that is what this essay is supposed to disprove. This essay will show that I do not agree with the idea that the French Revolution was caused only by the incompetence of Louis XVI; instead, I think that the French Revolution was caused by many factors, including social, economic and political ones. And cultural. To demonstrate this I will compare and contrast three different interpretations on the cause of the French Revolution, interpretations which are: the Marxist interpretation, the revisionist interpretation and the post-revisionist interpretation. In doing so, I hope to conclude with a well-rounded idea about the possible causes of the French Revolution, justifying my opinion that there is not just one and that multiple factors all contributed. One of the first interpretations on the origins of the French Revolution the revolution is the Marxist interpretation. This interpretation is based on the thesis that the revolution was the product of a class war between the bourgeoisie and the privileged. This interpretation was largely developed by Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul. This is a socialist perspective on the revolution that sees the French Revolution as a catalyst for the destruction of the French monarchy but also as a destroyer of the old social regime that supported the noble aristocracy who enjoyed an unfair privilege over the rest of the population. Of course, the class struggle between nobles and the bourgeoisie in France was said to be prominent in this period of the revolution. The clergy would never subscribe to the social desires of the bourgeoisie and the common people, and because of these disagreements between the classes, the apparent threat of danger loomed large. This is a fundamental approach to Marxist interpretation; the development of capitalism in France; the social changes and developments that caused the old regime that supported the nobles and clergy to collapse, instead adhering more closely to the bourgeois class. The collapse of the old regime and the beginning of the revolution are usually linked by historians in support of the Marxist interpretation, but it is not exactly clear whether the collapse of the old regime is the real cause of the revolution itself, as has been believed by many in past. The classical view of the origins of the French Revolution has been questioned by more recent historians who have introduced other interpretations ofwhat may have been the exact cause. But there are obvious complications whether the revolution was caused by class struggle and capitalist formation, and many nowadays criticize the social interpretation of the origin of the revolution. Which leads to the second relevant interpretation, which is the revisionist interpretation. This interpretation focuses less on the class struggle within the French population and places more emphasis and relevance on the political and financial crisis in France. In terms of the economic state of France during this period, things did not look good. Platière describes an atmosphere in which hundreds of cotton and/or wool garments are destroyed, due to the despair in which the financial crisis has placed producers. Interpretation that places these contingent crises in first place among the reasons relating to the origins of French industry. The revolution was developed mainly by the historians Furet and Cobban. These historians argued that the origins of the revolution depended more on the political and financial situation and saw the revolution as political rather than social. According to this interpretation, the rise of the state was the nail in the coffin, in terms of the decline of monarchy, noble power, etc. Even this prospect does not do much for Louis XVI. Showcasing the economic aspect here, the monarchy left France with twenty years of debt revenue in 1715 and applied cruel taxation, with heavy taxes levied after and during the wars. This interpretation appears to be a criticism of the Marxist interpretation, with the revisionist view challenging the idea that a revolution is initiated simply by a class struggle, and that class struggle is instead a secondary element behind the two contingent viewpoints . However, both of these interpretations have some merit and foothold as to why the French Revolution began. However, there is another important interpretation on the cause of the French Revolution, which seems to shift the focus from social, economic and political arguments. The third important interpretation in this topic is the post-revisionist interpretation. This interpretation focuses on the cultural aspect of French society and puts a magnifying glass on political rhetoric and propaganda, on the public opinions that circulated in French society at the time and on the failure of the monarchy in terms of controlling public opinion. This postrevisionist interpretation has been extensively developed by historians such as Lynn Hunt. This idea of ​​public opinion as the main cause of the French Revolution can be supported by Young's observations; It describes the climate of political opinions which are predominantly liberal, violent and against the clergy and nobility. It also tells of the rapid production of political pamphlets and the increased popularity of these pamphlets and the violent and liberal opinions produced by the propaganda. Can we blame a revolution on developed popular public opinion and propaganda that opposes the dominant political and financial institutions? However, a cultural approach to the origins of the revolution seems to insert a more intimate aspect into the topic. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Therefore, historical events such as a revolution cannot be reduced to one thing as the culprit for why a revolution occurs. In French society there seemed to be problems in social, economic, political and cultural aspects, and you can really discuss one without the other. In terms of placing the blame completely on King Louis XVI and his incompetence in governing a country, it is obvious0191-6599(01)00032-8