Agree with all except the thread creator, +1 is the way to go. Anything linguistic, even if it's limited to ko forums, does not need to be discussed once it's understood and used by the community as a whole. I also interpret it as saying "agree, add one person (me) to the list".
Marxian theories were in no way limited to describing a revolution. It's core can, according to me and many with me, be applied in any time to explain various events and situations. It's theories are not limited to political society relations as it sounds on your post, but is a somewhat common set of theories used for analysis on lots of things.Originally posted by SkiTz
Marxian theories were written about a revolution which occured like 100 years after the French Revolution and claimed to have knowledge of why the Revolution occured. In most terms the Marxian theory of the Revolution are in deed untrue: They claim the revolution was the Bourgeouis rising up against the French Government, and, in turn, overthrowing it with force (revolution). However, if you examine the Revolution closely, you will find that many notables and clergy members were leaders of the uprising parties in the French Revolution (Abbe Sieyes [clergy], Lafayette (Second Estate)) , and the bourgeouis had little to do with it.
As stated above, it is obvious that the Marxian theories are in some cases untrue and are not to be completely believed.
And btw, i wrote that myself; maybe you should try writting instead of copy and paste from another site?
/ french revolution.
For a simple explanation of how Bourgeois were de facto the uprising factor in the French revolution I can recommend a text titled something like 'Understanding and mobilizing the masses' written by either Castro or Guevara, can't remember which. It's not about the the french revolution but describes how and why are there often a few middle/upper class active in the revolution of the Bourgeois (short question, long answer).