Daughter of the Beast: The General's New Clothes

Feroz writes "Secondly, please review your sources. Pre-1789 industrialization in France was limited and did not really take hold till the time of Napoleon III. "

Once again you repeat your old falsehood and as is the Pakistani tradition of the pseudo educated these days, you admit no fault of your own, even though you made a big blunder by putting ONLY the bourgeoisie in the third estate when it comprised of the bourgeoisie as a minority, together with the peasants, serfs, artisans and the urban workers or the proletaiat.

That the bourgeoisie ranks had been swelling in Paris, itself reveals the industrialization was taking a firm hold in pre revolutionary France, they were still a feudal country but the bourgeoisie were fast replacing the nobility. Finally, if the bourgeoisie were as independant as you say they were then indeed industrialization would have become paramount but that was not the case therefore the needed to use the discontent of the masses, the people, the proletariat, the artisans who made enterpreneurs become bourgeoisie etc. For a historian you really have half baked knowledge, I suggest you dust off your books are try reading the events again.

Regarding "policy"- I am not looking a policy because I'm looking at a revolution, only a revolution that totally restructures a society its roots and superstructure will change our fate. Policy on the other hand works through an existing system, that is why you are stuck in the bureaucracy of the status quo which amounts to enslavement by the Americans. Write as much policy as you want, you wont be able to fix anything within the existing structure therefore when you ask for detailed policies, you are mere excuse mongering...

re: Asadi # 31

Asadi, your posts have nothing to do with comprehension, but interpretation. To be honest with you, since your posts towards intactors who have disagreed with you have been generally abusive and insulting, it makes sense to ask you what you mean. :)

Secondly, please review your sources. Pre-1789 industrialization in France was limited and did not really take hold till the time of Napoleon III.

Thirdly; I still restate that the bourgeoise in the city were more crucial in the revolution than the artisans and serfs, because if you check your sources, you will know it was the educated bourgeoise in the National Assembly that framed the contexts of the revolution and not the serfs in the fields and also that the French Revolution was an urban based event before it spread to the countryside and for most part, the power remained in Paris. That is why I had said that the artisans and the serfs did not benefit from revolution; both before or after it.

I think your assessment is fair that the bourgeoise used the revolution for their own interests, but at the same time, self-interest in politics and not social alturism generally is the motivating influence.

Regarding the Americans;

Non-appeasement with the Americans implies an ability to resist the American pressures to conform with the status quo and though in theory, it may sound nice and noble; in reality it is not so easy.

No sir, the question asking you to define the implementation of your ideas is not a bureaucratic non-sense because if you do not have an implementing plan, for your theories/ideas, they will remain as mere theories. Your ideas are good and if they are not implemented in policy, they will only remain as slogans and that is why a process of implementing them is important.

Asadi, if there is any excuse mongering, it is by you because you state these ideas will help but offer no practical means on how they should be made into realistic policies. What you have is slogans/ideas and slogans/ideas have not benefited Pakistan in the last 60 years.

I am not interested in slogan mongering, but realistic policy options and we can disagree on the policy choices and that is only fair, but we need policies that work and not wishful slogans. :)

I have a few deadlines in the works, so I will leave this board and maybe, we can pick up this argument somewhere else. :)

Best Wishes!

Ciao

Feroz writes "Tell me, how can you be so sure that you know exactly what I meant or are you assuming again? (lol)"

If you had a clear grasp over your comprehension abilities, you'd note that the way I can be "sure" is that you have not invented that division but were merely reproducing other people's narrations of it that you have read.

Second, if you had read my post carefully you would not conlcude that industrialism was developed in pre revolutionary France, its foundations however were being laid by the bourgeoisie slowly displacing the feudals in numbers and in many cases wealth as well

Third, your division reduced the third estate to the bourgeoisie alone and not the city artisans or the peasants and serfs, that was your error which you are not acknowledging, and your entire exercise of comparing pre revolutionary France with Pakistan falls by the wayside not only because of the "military" factor but because there is no comparable bourgeoisie in Pakistani cities and the Feudals are still extremely strong.

Finally urbanization came as a consequence of the feudal dialectic which only later gave rise to the entrepreneurs and the bourgeoisie- you cannot thus claim that they were the most important figures in the cities- they used the disenchantment of the masses to their benefits and hence their rise.

Regarding the how non appeasement to the Americans can be achieved, it can be achieved as I said in the post (which you selectively ignore) together with other developing nations and not alone. Just because a task is difficult and near impossible does not mean we should default to the status quo and make a deal with the devil just for personal short term gain with long term disaster.

Then he writes "Provide the explantion on how the Pakistan will realize the needs of its population, and please define those needs so that we "are on the same page" and explain how it will break free from the "oppressive" world system?

Do you visualize the creation of alternative world system and if so, please explain this system and explain, why you think it has a better chance of success than the present system?"

This is a bunch of nonsense that tries to confuse the issues as well as the solutions in standard "bureaucracy" form, that achieves nothing except tons of paperwork and in the box thinking, a control mechanism to get the robots to be as unpragmatic as possible because the rationalized task of it is to keep the status quo while making the people feel that they are "doing" something.

The needs of the people of Pakistan are basic human needs, we can reduce it to slogans like "roti kapra, makaan"- after which and as a consequence of which will be better health, productivity and education, greater opportunities for innovation and industrialization, non reliance on primary products for trade because of unfair domination in the global system that prevents the feudals from ever being overthrown in our system. How that can be achieved is very simple, you as a claiminat to being a historian should know better, democracy will produce a bourgeoisie revolution that overthrows feudalism as well as incorporate socialism into the workings of the economy consolidating the resources for use by the people. Now if your purpose was for me to spell out to you how to organize a social movement that brings about democracy, and then exactly what procedures to follow and what organizations to design and what cirriculum to follow in the class room, if that is what you mean by "detailed",then you are mere excuse mongering...

re: Asadi # 27

Asadi wrote, "I know exactly what you meant because this was no firsthand invention of yours but a copying from what others have already written."

(lol)

Tell me, how can you be so sure that you know exactly what I meant or are you assuming again? (lol)

Minor point of correction. The bourgeoise did lay the founditions of the French industrialism, but after the Napoleonic period; they created French industrialism in the post-1815. In pre-1789 France, the primary industry of France was agriculture and there was hardly any industries in France and in fact, the Industrial Revolution had recently started in England, circa 1750s and would not reach France till after 1815. French industrial growth of hindered by the European wars from 1791 to 1815.

Second point; the Third Estate's most important group was the bourgeoise and not the peasants/serfs because the French Revolution was an urban event before it became common in the countrysides of France. Granted, the peasants/serfs did constitute the majority of the population, but they never had any political, or economic powers even before the revolution or after it.

Third point; I agree that Pakistani politics without its military influence cannot be understood in its totality.

Fourth point and a point of clarification.

If non-appeasement to United States' policies is the answer, as you state, then explain by what means the United States' policies can be resisted?

Provide the explantion on how the Pakistan will realize the needs of its population, and please define those needs so that we "are on the same page" and explain how it will break free from the "oppressive" world system?

Do you visualize the creation of alternative world system and if so, please explain this system and explain, why you think it has a better chance of success than the present system?

Explain your solution to the problem in detail.

Ciao

re: zeemax # 28

Do you remember the name of the Wali of Swat, who agreed to join Pakistan in 1969?

Was it Prince Aurganzeb?

Ciao

#21 Posted by masadi,

In response to ferozk's pretty standard view "Had the government not caved in to the demands of the mullahs of Swat and itself weakened its writ, it would not be in this position today.", you write well that "Unlike the Americans whatever Pakistani government (legitimate or illegtimate) is in power has to live in this neighbourhood and you cannot pick a fight with the indigeneous folk and open another front in your tenuous dictatorship.

I would just add a little background to this. Yahya Khan merged the independent princely state of Swat with Dir / Malakand Division of NWFP in 1969 without any referendum or any other form of public participation. The people were much better-off under the Wali Swat rule, but guess the Wali had his own reasons to accept the merger.

The TNSM (Tehreek-Nafaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi) began in early 90s and gained mass support in the region. Their single demand (non-violent) was implementation of Sharia. To this end, they took to blocking the Dir-Malakand Highway and the silk route from time to time. This demand was agreed by NS Government in 1999 and Shariah was officially promulgated in the Malakand Division including Swat. However, the TNSM maintained it was only in name (Session courts were renamed Qazi courts and bearded judges were appointed) while penal code was not changed ... and the agitation continued.

The current flare-up is directly connected with Lal-Masjid/Jamia Hafsa. The Ghazi brothers were both TNSM people, and TNSM has firm backing of Mujahideen in Waziristan. After Lal-Masjid, Fazlullah turned militant, and has claimed an army of 80,000 fighters. I don't doubt that claim at all. People of Swat want Sharia rule.

Swat was fully independent before, and there's no reason why it can't at-least have it's own judicial system now.

Why doesn't Pakistan just agree?

It is the sheer arrogance and servitude to outside interests of the 'K's of Pakistan which will slowly but surely turn them into the Biharis of Bangladesh - who helped foreign interests against those of their own.

On second assessment, maybe not that slowly either.

Feroz writes "Asadi, as to what I meant by the Third Estate, you do not know and will not know what I mean till you ask me; so please do not assume or think and rationalize what I might have meant! :)

I did not mean bourgeoisie in the sense of the proletariat - that is your inference and in this case, it is misplaced. "

I know exactly what you meant because this was no firsthand invention of yours but a copying from what others have already written. You made a serious error in that reproduction by divinding up pre revolutionary French society into exhaustive classes and missing the major component of the Third Estate, the peasants and the serfs and the workers in other word the Proletariat, the bourgeoisie were not the only city dwellers, the bourgeoisie the entrepreneurs, or the middle classes if you will were the ones that consolidated their position and later laid the foundation of the factories, i.e. owners of the means of production what Marx referred to as the bourgeiosie revolution.

Here is a history lesson for you (Quoted from http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thefrenchrevolution/a/hfr1.htm )

"France was governed by a king who ruled thanks to the grace of God; in 1789 this was Louis XVI, crowned on June 11th 1775. Ten thousand people worked in his main palace at Versailles, and 5% of his income was spent supporting it. The rest of French society considered itself divided into three groups: the estates.

The First Estate were the clergy, who numbered around 130,000 people, owned a tenth of the land and were due tithes of one tenth of everyone's income, although the practical applications varied hugely. They were immune from tax and frequently drawn from noble families. They were all part of the Catholic Church, the only official religion in France. Despite strong pockets of Protestantism, over 97% of the French population considered themselves Catholic.

The Second Estate were the nobility, numbering around 120,000 people. These were formed in part from people born into noble families, but certain highly sought after government offices also conferred noble status. Nobles were privileged, didn't work, had special courts and tax exemptions, owned the leading positions in court and society – almost all of Louis XIVs ministers were noble – and were even allowed a different, quicker, method of execution. Although some were enormously rich many were no better off than the lowest of the French middle classes, with a strong lineage and little else besides feudal dues.

The remainder of France, over 99%, formed the Third Estate. The majority were peasants who lived in near poverty, but around two million were the middle classes: the bourgeoisie. These had doubled in number between the years of Louis XIV and XVI and owned around a quarter of French land. The common development of a bourgeoisie family was for one to make a fortune in business or trade and then plough that money into land and education for their children, who joined professions, abandoned the 'old' business and lived their lives comfortable, but not excessive existences, passing their offices down to their own children. One notable revolutionary, Robespierre, was a fifth generation lawyer. One key aspect of bourgeois existence was venal offices, positions of power and wealth within the royal administration which could be purchased and inherited: the entire legal system was comprised of purchasable offices. Demand for these was high and the costs rose ever higher. "

Regarding the military not dominating affiars in pre revoutionary France was what I was saying as well but since you were making a connection between how that was similar to the Pakistan of today, so I made the point that it cannot be because the Pakistan of today cannot be understood without reference to its military domination.

Then you wrote: "If appeasement of the American policy is not an option, then what is the best way to prevent a civil war in Pakistan?"

The answer is contained in your question, non-appeasement is the key. US appeasement is related to external motives unrelated to the needs of the people of Pakistan. Once Pakistan realizes the needs of its people it will see that those problems and needs are not too different from other underdeveloped nations and that they are caused by a world system based on appeasement of the major powers, then they will break away from the system of oppression and develop together....simple solution but difficult because it involves a intricate web of deception that has trapped most nations in a narrow existance...

Oh I forgot:

"I love the Beast"

RE: #22 Posted by bulleya

Hilarious and creative, but not accurate.

"Scene 4: Dave walks out of the shower, as Ras steps in, wearing nothing but a smile and his I love Asif Zardari towel…"

SHOULD READ

"I love ZAB towel..."

Can't stand the other person...

Re: Asadi # 19

Just to be clear, are you defining the term "bourgeoisie" in a Marxian sense?

The term "bourgeoisie" in my post meant the people who lived in the cities and generally refered to merchants, lawyers etc. It seems that you are putting a Marxian spiel on the French Revolution, but to answer your question; the political power in Europe had started to shift to the urban areas by the time of the French Revolution even though the social structure of the European society was still feudal.

Asadi, as to what I meant by the Third Estate, you do not know and will not know what I mean till you ask me; so please do not assume or think and rationalize what I might have meant! :)

I did not mean bourgeoisie in the sense of the proletariat - that is your inference and in this case, it is misplaced.

Bourgeoisie, in the case of the French society of circa 1700 meant people who lived in the cities and they did not control the means of production. The means of production was controlled by the Second Estate.

I never said that the military dominated the political and social, political or economics affairs in France of the 1700.

I said that Second Estate dominated the military, economic and social affairs in pre-revolution France. Again, please do not twist my words to suit your own peculiar view points. :)

Ciao

re: Asadi # 21

Do you have a solution?

Please ignore Fox; it is a rabid dog of American neo-cons and I do not agree with its views.

If appeasement of the American policy is not an option, then what is the best way to prevent a civil war in Pakistan?

Ciao

The Expat Dilemma:
-----------------

Act 1 – Scene 1: The Men’s shower room at the Dearborn, Michigan Community Center

Hamidm Mian: “Hey Dave, how is it going?”
Dave: “Fine Hamidm Mian”
Hamidm Mian: “Call me HM, Dave...”
Dave: “OK”
Hamdim Mian: “Hey Dave, did I ever tell you about my sprinkler guy.....”
Dave: “Not now, Hamidm Mian…I’m busy showeri…”
Hamidm Mian: “Call me HM…OK, so yesterday, after I had finshed of my four Budwiesers with my White Anglo-Saxon Caucasian friends in the bar, I came back and asked Mrs. HM to hand me a can of Miller Light, which was next to the Merlot….You know I drink alcohol….don’t you”
Dave: “Yes HM….you sent out an email at work, a few days ago, telling all of us.....”
Hamidm Mian: (takes off his jock strap and enters the shower)“Hey Dave, just wanted to show you that I am not like those Pakistanis who take showers with their underwear on……What Maroons!!…You know the type…who prefer caffeine free Pepsi to Hieneken..”
Dave: “Yeah, I know HM….can I just take a shower, please”
Hamidm Mian: “I like to let my boys bounce in the wind….you know like all us Americans…not like those damn maulvis……I was thinking of getting a Union Jack tatooeed on the left one…..but the doctor said, it might cause some problems…..specially since....you know….you know……all the Molsons I enjoy”

Act 1 Scene 2: Tahmad enters, in his birthday suit:

Hamidm Mian: “Hey TA……you are not wearing an underwear…..when did you stop being an extremist…hahaha”
Tahmad: “Hey HM…I used to wear my loongi while I showered, but then I found out that letting my boys blow in the breeze is only forbidden in hadith….Not in the holy book”
Hamidm Mian: “Damn maulvis……I think we should bomb all these idiots who take a shower with their underwear on…..if you can’t show your boys to the boys, then you hate America….Right!!”
Tahmad: “Yeah…I think they should be bombed also…its for their own good…What about you Dave….what are your views about bombing people who shower with their underwear on……?”
Dave: “I am totally against bombing……I hate George Bush…..I am from the Green Party…now let me shower in peace”
Tahmad: “I don’t like it either……but we have to spread democracy and freedom……and you can’t do that if you have all these guys showering in their locker rooms with their swimming suits on”
Hamidm Mian: “Its jock straps, you Maroon….not swimming suits!.....You’ve been living in US of A so long, and still haven’t integrated……..Hey Dave, you know, yesterday, when Bush was speaking about how well the Iraq war was going, I had tears in my eyes……they almost fell on the Guinness that was in my hand……you know I drink, Dave…right”
Dave: “Yes HM, we all know ….we all know!!!………”
Tahmad: “I don’t like Bush, but it’s the WMDs….I wish we didn’t have to bomb Iraq, but well……we have to……to get rid of the extremists……I can’t stand people, who force others to take showers with their undies on….. ….”
Dave: “You guys know we have killed 600,000 people…..!!”
Hamidm Mian: “Yeah….but they all had beards….I can’t stand hair……Anyone with facial hair should be bombed…….Look at me (spreads his arms and opens his legs)….I had all my hair, on my body, surgically removed………”
Dave: “I have a beard……”
Hamidm Mian: “Yeah….but you are bald……and blond…….and a White Anglo-Saxon Caucasian………….you guys are great!!…….You know my great-great grandfather migrated from Kansas to Afghanistan…….”
Dave: “You know our soldiers are getting killed also”
Hamidm Mian: ”Bravest guys in the world……..”
Dave: “Would you send your kids to get killed”
Hamidm Mian: “No way!...Are you nuts!....I believe in Adam Smith’s division of labor….My kids need to pay taxes…….so other people’s kids have enough armor to go fight”
Dave: “So you are a Cheney Republic?...What about you Tahmad”
Tahmad: “Yeah, I am ready to pay extra taxes, if I don’t have to fight….but we have to kill the extremists…..”
Dave: “But we killed 600,000 people”
Tahmad: “Yeah…all those brave souls dying for democracy….They are martyrs, according to my religion…Such brave guys”
Dave: “But they didn’t want to die!!”
Tahmad: “You know us Americans never kill anyone who doesn’t want to die for democracy….all 600,000 wanted to die!”
Hamidm Mian: “Hey Dave, I am going to go have a Lebatt Blue with Arju….I mean with my White Anglo-Saxon Caucasian friends – one is Jewish, one is Irish and a German – after I finish this shower, without my underwear…….do you want to join us…”
Tahmad: “Hey HM, can I come?”
Hamidm Mian: “No, not you………you Maroon!....I only drink with my White Anglo-Saxon Caucasian friends”
TA: “I thought you told me your only friend was Arjunm…”
Hamidm Mian: “TA!..how many times I have told you not to mention him in front of White Anglo-Saxon Caucasians!!…..Hey Dave….Hey, did I tell you about my sprinkler g…..”
Dave: “Let me finish my fuckin’ shower….you idiots…….”
Hamidm Mian: (turns around) “Hey Dave, check this out……I have Rush Limbaugh tattooed on my right cheek and Dinesh D’Souza on my left one….check it out, it looks like they are debating, when I flex my cheeks…….that’s the only debate that should be allowed in our red white and blue country….Dinesh and Rush……you know everyone else hates us, because we are so successful…….bomb’em…..”

Act 1 Scene 3: Urstruly enter the locker room, fully clothed:

Urstruly: (points to Hamidm Mian and Tahmad) “You guys know this is forbidden by Maulana Moudodi….showing your albaab-al-jawaalat-al-takmeeriyaat in public……Damn bastard americans!!”
Tahmad: “It’s only banned in Hadi…”
Hamidm Mian: “TA you Maroon!!…..we need to bomb Urstruly…look at how much hair he has…….He didn’t shave today!!......and after that, we should bomb Dave…..He hates Bush, which means he hates America…..”
Dave: “I don’t hate America……I was born here, you idiot!...”
Urstruly: “Damn bastard Americans…they are going to destroy the Ummah…”
Hamidm Mian: “Why!!”
Urstruly: “I got my Green Card on time, but they delayed my Passport by two days….Damn bastards……these Americans are the cause of every problem in the world….”
Tahmad: “Why do you live in the USA and badmouth it…..when we are trying to spread democracy and kill extremists…….”
Urstruly: “You know when I went to the welfare office to get my check, right before I went to the student assistance office to get aid for my nephew, I found the INS won’t be processing the political asylum applications for my uncle, aunt, and two brothers for another three months…….damn bastard Americans!!”
Tahmad: “Why don’t you look at HM…he lives here and loves the USA…and he supports the bombing of extremists…..each and every one of the 600,000………and he is even ready to work extra to pay taxes for the troops”
Urstruly: “I was duped…….duped into coming to the USA 17 years ago……And they keep duping me every year…….They just duped me two weeks ago…..and then, again two days ago……damn bastard Americans…..they are getting what they deserved…..you know, they aren’t even willing to expedite my cousins’ H1-B visa applications……all five are waiting…….damn Westerners…….you know two of them applied as imams at the local Detroit mosque……and the INS is still not expediting their applications…….these Americans are going to destroy Islam……”

Dave: (rolls his eyes)“…where the hell did all of you come from!!..”
Hamidm Mian: “Hey Dave, did I tell you about my sprinkler guy……He has a collection of Schlitz……”

Scene 4: Dave walks out of the shower, as Ras steps in, wearing nothing but a smile and his I love Asif Zardari towel…

To Be Continued…..

Feroz writes in his ilog "Terrorism cannot be appeased and it has to be crushed before it is able to consolidate itself. Had the government not caved in to the demands of the mullahs of Swat and itself weakened its writ, it would not be in this position today. "

There is no great thought or prediction in this assertion, it is the official US position that their mainstream media (with FOX in the lead) have been stating ever since the deal was stuck in criticism of Pakistan. Unlike the Americans whatever Pakistani government (legitimate or illegtimate) is in power has to live in this neighbourhood and you cannot pick a fight with the indigeneous folk and open another front in your tenuous dictatorship. The choice is between appeasement of the Americans or a mini civil war (totally unnecessary) at the home front. The Americans threatened to get rid of Musharraf so now instead of one shot here or there he is acting as "law man", the greatest terrorists are those that threaten regime change if their desires are not met and they are those that use the excuse of terrorism to bomb and kill innocents (as they have been doing in that very area). You are a damn fool to side with the real terrorists and want us to sing your praises just because you repeat the official US line on the issue. Get a brain fool.....

tahmed writes "The fascists behind these attacks have (wittingly or unwittingly) strengthened Musharraf's hands by making it dangerous for peaceful protestors to even protest this robbery of their basic rights!! "

When properly translated minus the BS, it should read

"The American fascists behind these attacks have very wittingly strengthened BB and Musharaf's hands by making it into a pseudo-emergency like situation where alternatives to those pre-chosen by the Americans will have an increasingly hard time running a meaningful political campaign while making it dangerous for peacful protestors to protest this US robbing of the people's basic rights...

feroz writes "France in 1789, like the medieval European society, was divided into three estates (social classes) and these included the First Estate (clergy), the Second Estate (nobility) and the Third Estates (bourgeoise). "

Einstein, there were no bourgeoisie in Medieval European Society, only when feudalism was overthrown did the bourgeoisie reign supreme. ON the other hand you need to get your terminology straight, by the Third Estate you mean the proletariat or the working class and not the bourgeoisie (i.e. the owners of the means of production).

Finally, if that is your line of thought then the US where the top 1% owns almost 50% of all wealth and where the the rest of American society the "new working class" pays the greatest percent of its income in taxes qualifies more to that effect. Pakistan does not have an independant elite, the military did not dominate economic and political affairs in pre-revolutionary France, and there was no external power that would flood the economy with cash in order to keep the masses at bay and manage the revolution...

re: SR and tahmed32

Pakistan, in a sense, mirrors the contours of the French society on the eve of the revolution in 1789.

The interesting sociological and cultural aspects of the French Revolution was that despite the fact that medievalism-feudalism had ended in Europe by the 1500s, it continued in France till the time of the revolution. France in 1789, like the medieval European society, was divided into three estates (social classes) and these included the First Estate (clergy), the Second Estate (nobility) and the Third Estates (bourgeoise).

The First Estate was made of 1 percent of the French population and did not pay taxes; it owned 10 percent of all the lands in France and had its own legal system and was not accountable to the state.

The Second Estate was made of 2-3 percent of the population and did not pay any taxes and maintained its feudal privileges and dominated the French bureaucracy and the military, owned all the wine presses and flour mills in France, which it rented to the peasants and also acted as advisors to the king.

The Third Estate payed 100 percent of the taxes in France and had no political rights.

The French parliament, the Estates-General, at the time of the French Revolution had not met for a period 175 years!

Pakistan, in many ways, is exactly what France was in 1789 and the noteworthy caveat is that the French Revolution did not happen due to the political reasons, as much as it did from bad harvests, outstanding debts owned by France to Dutch bankers; money borrowed by Louis XIV to finance his European wars and the building of the Palace of Versailles and the ever increasing prices of food - especially bread, which was the staple diet for the Third Estate and thus, the majority of the French population.

Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought that I should aleast bring your attention to social and cultural issues, which were far more instrumental in the bringing about the revolution than politics. French Revolution is a favorite period of mine in European history, but I will stop now. :)

Ciao