Mainstream historiography of the French revolution

[RedWorker]

Is what Wikipedia is saying here just bullshit or was the mainstream historiography of the French revolution really 'Marxist' and then this became 'discredited'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_French_Revolution

[Zhi]

I'm actually doing a 4000 word dissertation on the Causes of it with an emphasis on Marxist and Economic deterministic historiography so I can give a good response for you RedWorker.

The French Revolution of 1789 has always been a Marxist one, because it epitomised the role economics plays in history and translates into revolts, movements and rebellion. It was mainstream to analyse it through the lens of Marxism because it explained so much. The revolts of Vendee against the Jacobins and so on demonstrate that the pious, peasantry still wanted a King. The alteration of the 1793 constitution to include property rights reinforced this. There is very little material on the historiography of Revolutionary France overall without it being concerned with class politics.

Wiki, despite be hating it and being mostly wrong is actually correct in this instance. It is only very recent historians who have dubbed the Marxist interpretation (the article cites Schama). I hoped this helped.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I took a course on the history of France (and industrial Europe up until 1871) last semester. My teacher wasn't exactly sympathetic to the Marxist interpretation of the revolution but he did bring it up, because it was the dominant school of thought in regards to that specific historical event for a long time. Recently people in academia have been more skeptical of the interpretation, though, pointing out that the aristocracy and the "middle classes" (ie nascent bourgeoisie) were a lot more intertwined than previously believed, through marriage and also through social outlook.

[RedWorker]

But how has the Marxist understanding been 'discredited'?