?

Because you’re just looking at the outcome

The primary goals achieved were the abolition of feudalism, a shrinking of church authority, and a dissolution of the monarchy

The idea that the non feudal entities rose up against the feudal entities, and that the 2nd estate defended the feudal privileges while he 3rd estate fought against them, is just not in any way supported by the historical record

I didn't say that

But no one had those goals at the onset

You absolutely did

On day 1 that was not the goal

It was a language confusion because of how I use the word bourgeois

You're French?

You called any 2nd estate person who fought against feudalism a class traitor

Like I said when I say bourgeoisie, I don't mean all members of the 3rd Estate, I mean somebody who possessed property, but was not a member of the aristocracy or church

Because he was an aristocrat

Ok, you are using that word wrong

And helped end feudalism

I'm not using the word wrong, i told you that's how the word is used in Marxism

And I'm a Marxist so I tend to use Marxist language.

Marx uses the word in the context of the French Revolution

To take it further and expand it and change its meaning is absolutely using it wrong

I believe you are using the word wrong.

He uses the word in dialectical materialism, which is his entire system of historical analysis

Not just in reference to the French Revolution, and certainly not to mean simply the 3rd Estate of the French Revolution.

Ok

If you think I'm incorrect I could quote Marx using the word in a context outside of the French Revolution

Go ahead then

My point was about the French Revolution

The facts of which do not in any way support the Marxist conclusion that it was he great bourgeoise Revolution

And is one of several big problems I have with Marx interpretations

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

That's from the manifesto

and he's not talking about the French Revolution in this passage

Yeah he’s adding the class proletariat, but bourgeoise still includes like, lawyers and doctors

No it doesn't.

?

There's an entirely different word for them within Marxism

...yes it does

Ok

We call them labor aristocrats

Lol ok

They're not the same thing as the bourgeois class

Anyway, I’m gonna get back to work