| ▲ | alephnerd 21 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> don't conflate "nobility" and "bourgeois" in your statistics and analysis Yet it was mid-level aristocrats that were overrepresented in the Directorate and the Council of 500. > no. Bourgeois, prior to the revolution, were not part of the elite. It's difficult to imagine, but there was a time where there wasn't such a direct correlation as today between wealth and power Yes. I know, but the initial conversation is based on correcting the a revisionist meme that the French Revolution was a quasi-communist revolution, when in reality it was just a form of inter-elite fratricide - especially between mid-level aristocrats and the church and a subset of royalists. All the revolution did was cleave the bourgeois from the third estate, and merge them along with the second and first estates. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | vdupras 20 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> meme that the French Revolution was a quasi-communist revolution It's not a meme. There's clearly a collectivist movement within the revolution, it's just that this force failed to take power. The "révolution de Février", in 1848 was precisely this: Paris going full collectivist, abolishing property and all, then small land owner from the provinces freaking out and all come to Paris to whoop them. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||