What Causes Revolutions Rachael Jones

As Karl Marx once stated, Every revolution is social in so far as it destroys the old
society. Every revolution is political in so far as it destroys the old power.1 Revolutions
dont just occur from one factor alone; rather there is a mixture of different factors
that all contribute and when combined, result in revolution. However, common to all
revolutions are the social classes that form the country, and when they arent happy
with the existing regime they rise up with demands, resulting in revolution. In both the
Russian (1917) and French (1789) revolutions; social, economic and political factors all
contributed to the overthrow of the existing regimes. In both cases external factors,
namely war, pushed these societies to boiling point. However, this only occurred
because of the unstable conditions of society before war. It is the unrest in social
classes that act as the backbones of revolutions, with other factors extending off it.
Every grievance is like a drop of rain that falls into the ocean, an abundant amount of
water causes a tsunami, revolution!
The discontent and unrest among the social classes was the leading factor in the
causes of the Russian and French Revolutions. In Russia, after losing the Crimean War,
the army needed to modernised itself to maintain its great power status. In order to
achieve this, Russias society and economy needed to undergo major change. When
Russia began to modernise its economy, social changes occurred that threatened the
feudal tsarist autocracy. Failed harvests, inflation and economic depression saw
Russias peasants and urban workers increasingly resort to riots, demonstrations and
strikes to protest at their poor conditions.
Russia was an ethnically divided nation, comprising of 23 different nationalities, so it
was not surprising that many resented Russian rule. Less than half the nation was
Russian and 77% of the whole population were peasants with only about 1.5% of the
total belonging to the world outside agriculture. Although it was necessary to
modernise Russia if it was to retain great power status, the process of
industrialisation was disruptive and threatened the security of the tsarist autocracy.
Peasant poverty was a long standing issue within Russian society; living standards
were poor, with a whole family often sharing a single room. However, they were
granted emancipation in the late 1800s. When serfdom was abolished, the economy
and society had to be reconstructed. The nobility were forced to part with half their
land so that the peasant class could have land of their own. Although they were paid
compensation, members of the nobility were disgruntled as their power was
diminished. The peasants were free, but they too were resentful at the mortgage
payments they were required to make. Consequently, the reforms alienated both the
nobility and the peasantry.
By 1900 almost all sectors of the population were dissatisfied. The peasants wanted
more land, the workers wanted improved living conditions and socialist reform, the
middle class wanted a constitution and franchise, and the aristocracy wanted a
greater influence on government. Russias people demanded the redress of numerous
1 Karl Marx, Revolution A Redefinition

political, social and economic problems. Yet Tsar Nicholas II persisted in the belief that
to grant reforms would undermine his autocrat power. It was all of this conflict and
disorder within the classes that caused the revolution. Of course there are other
factors involved but if there was no discomfort in society, Russia may have been able
to pull through the economic crisis and war effort. The politics of Russia and the
economic crisis both contributed to the discontent and unrest among the social
classes; therefore it is namely social factors that cause revolution.
This situation is similar to that of the French Revolution. In France it was the huge gap
between living standards and rights of the rich and the vast majority of the population
that was the major cause for revolution. At the beginning of the 18th Century, France
had 20 million people living within its borders and over the course of the century, that
number increased by another 8 to 10 million.2 Under the Ancien Regime, everyone in
France belonged to one of three estates. The First Estate was the clergy of the Roman
Catholic Church. The Second Estate was the noblesse; the nobles and aristocrats who
in the Middle Ages who had been the feudal lords. The Third Estate was made up of
everyone else in the kingdom and consisted of several different social classes. The
bourgeoisie was the middle class and were people like non-aristocrat landowners,
merchants, owners of manufacturing industries and other businesses and
professionals. The sans-culottes were people who owned small shops, craft and other
town workers, as well as day labourers and domestic servants. The final sub-class are
the peasants. Peasants made up more than 97% of the population! In the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries France had become the most influential European
continental monarchy. The collapse of the Ancien Regime, shook the European world
on a scale unequalled since the collapse of the Roman Empire. 3
There was much dissatisfaction in the social classes of France. The bourgeoisie
wanted the ability to rise higher in society, often many of them were more intellectual
than the noblesse but they were just unfortunate in not being born into that estate.
The peasants wanted to have the even spread of taxes and be free of the burden they
carried. They did all the work and got nothing in return, the noblesse just lived off the
labour of the French people and served no useful function. The influence of
enlightenment created a dramatic turn in events and questioned the existing social
order. Leading writers and philosophers such as Jean Francois Arouet (1695 1778)
and Jean Jacques Rosseau (1712 1778) casted doubt on institutions and discussed
new ideas. Rosseau challenged the idea that kings rule and subjects obey. Arouet
became famous for his criticisms of the Church. Such ideas were absorbed by the
reading public and helped undermine the beliefs upon which the old order was based.
The First and Second Estates rebelled at the idea that they should be made to pay
taxes while the Third Estate pushed for change. R. R. Palmer wrote, It was also a
revolution of liberty and equality, to which it added fraternity, meaning at first a
national citizenship in which persons of different social classes and ethnic
2 http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/ - a collaboration of the Rov Rosenzweig Centre for History
and New Media (George Mason University) and American Social History Project (City
University of New York)
3 H. R. Cowe, Revolutions in the Modern World, 1979

backgrounds could find a common ground.4 This was marked in the meeting of the
States-General. This social upheaval and disorder lead to the causing the revolution.
The tsarist rule of Nicholas II and appalling politics of Russia was also a contributing
factor to the cause of the revolution. Rather than modernise the political structure,
Tsar Nicholas repressed demands for political reform, leaving Russian suspects with no
civil liberties. Nicholas II was a conservative leader with few of the skills needed to
effectively rule 132 million people. He was politically nave and accepted the advice
he favoured rather than that of people who attempted to guide him towards what was
politically sound and achievable. Propaganda and the teachings of the Russian
Orthodox Church encouraged his people to love and respect their Tsar and look on him
as a father who had the right to rule them severely in the interests of Russia. Political
parties were illegal until 1905. There was no parliament until 1906 and even then the
Tsar was hostile to its existence. There was no constitution to limit the Tsars power or
control the methods for choosing ministers.
Nicholas II was free to appoint and dismiss his advisers without giving reasons.
Nicholas II also ruled a police state. The secret police, the Okhrana, responded brutally
to anyone who dared to question his authority. Russias one million soldiers could be
moved to any part of the empire to put down revolts. The government imposed strict
censorship of the press. Critics, protesters and would-be revolutionaries risked death,
prison and exile for any activities they organised against the government. Vladmir
Lenin played a massive role in the Russian revolution. He was recorded saying, Not a
single class in history has reached power without thrusting forward its political
leaders, without advancing leading representatives capable of directing and
organising the movement. We must train people who will dedicate to the revolution,
not a spare evening but the whole of their lives5 Nicholas had neither the personal
qualities nor the political skills to maintain the autocracy as the pace of social and
economic change increased. This political disorder and suffocation of civil right is
another contributing factor as to why the people of Russia turned to revolution.
You see these very same problems two centuries ago in the French revolution. Peter
Amann once said, As I define it, revolution prevails when the states monopoly of
power is effectively challenged and persists until a monopoly is re-established.6 King
Louis XVIs rule over France was another factor that influenced the making of the
revolution. People were unsatisfied with his ability to be king. He ruled as an absolute
monarch, not sharing any power with any group or representatives. He ruled by
divine right, being appointed by God. Absolutism had been developing in France
since the 15th Century and Louis XVI was the countrys supreme ruler. Just like
Nicholas II, Louis XVI was a young and nave king who didnt have the first idea on
4 R. R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and
America, 1760 1800, 1959
5 Vladmir Lenin
6 Peter Amann, Revolution A Redefinition

how to run a country. He had advisors but only listened to what appealed to him and
not what would benefit the whole country. Living in Versailles, Louis XVI was away
from the heart of France and was distant from the people. Ruling from a distance
seemed quite comfortable for Louis XVI because he never had to deal first-hand with
the problems of the nation. He could sit back in his magnificent palace and let other
people do the dirty work. He was blind to what was going on in his country and his
inability to rule was definitely a contributing factor to the revolution.
Russia was on the brink of economic crises and this was another drop of water that
built up and caused the tsunami of revolution. By the 19th century, Russia was a huge
empire with an economy based on agriculture; the Russian government was
encouraging industrial growth. The autocratic government linked the political and
economic systems. Half the arable land was owned directly by the Tsar and the rest by
the nobility, although they made up less than half the population. However, after
pressure to industrialise the country in order to modernise the army and retain great
power status the economy began its downward spiral into the drain. The
emancipation of the serfs in 1861 allowed rapid industrial development. This
development focused on railways, the Trans-Siberian railway, and heavy industry at
the expense of other economic sectors because the armys needs were seen as
paramount. Although industry developed slowly during the 19th century, Russia only
began the painful and disruptive process of industrialisation in the last decades.

The growth of towns, which accompanied government attempts to industrialise

Russia, resulted in the concentration in large numbers of an increasingly rebellious
working class. By 1900, Russia had about 2, 500, 000 urban workers. They lived in
unhygienic and overcrowded factory dormitories where the two-shift system often
meant that two workers shared a bunk bed. In smaller factories, families lived next to
their workbenches. Others had rooms in poorly built, cramped and unsanitary housing.
Less than half those who lived in houses had running water or sewerage systems.
They worked a 12-hour day for poor wages and had no trade unions to fight for them
because they were illegal. Revolutionary activists from parties such as the Social
Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries had a willing audience. Workers increasingly
went on strike to demand improved working and living conditions. It was these
appalling working conditions and mistreatment of economic schemes that also
contributed with the causes of the revolution.
This same scenario was also seen in the French revolution, with peasants and workers
doing all the work and getting little reward. The chief weakness of Frances prerevolutionary form of government was faulty finance.7 The economy in France was
atrocious and was definitely a cause of the revolution. Peasants were burdened with
many direct and indirect taxes to the clergy, nobles and king. They were expected to
do all the work and pay all the taxes, effectively fuelling the economy by themselves.
7 A. Goodwin, The French Revolution, 1953

The First and Second Estates put very little back into the economy. Peasants couldnt
even afford to feed their own families but were still expected to work to provide for
the upper Estates. 20 million peasants lived in France but they owned only a third of
the land. Most held small lots or were tenant farmers. Many had no land at all and
survived only through poorly paid work on the estates of the nobles or wealthy
bourgeoisie. They were starving and poor, and this causes people to go to drastic
measures and do whatever was necessary to fill their stomachs. The bourgeoisie
were very smart and had prestigious jobs, however they werent happy with where
they were positioned in the economy and wanted the ability to earn more money, but
being part of the Third Estate limited this. After assisting the Americans in the war of
independence France was left dry of money. In supporting it Louis got his finances into
a very bad condition. Necker carried in the war by loans and the increase of taxes was
not enough to make up the deficit. 8 This caused a domino effect in all Estates. All
these grievances contributed to the turn of events that resulted in revolution.
The external factor of war was what pushed Russia over the edge. The decision to go
to war with Japan in February 1904 increased the governments weaknesses. The war
turned out to be a series of Russian military errors that demonstrated the inefficiency
of the Russian army and navy. The war ended with the humiliation of Russian defeat in
August 1905. It was the first victory of an Asian power over a European power.
Evidence of Russias military weakness increased peoples discontent and demands
for reform. Then in 1914, when Russia entered World War I it really pushed Russia into
revolution. The Tsar started losing his grip on power and lost support from key sectors
of Russian society. The army was an army of conscripts who were poorly led and
treated badly by their aristocrat officers. Poor moral within the army led to mutiny,
with soldiers killing their own officers and supporting the revolutionary, Bolshevik
Party. This final decision to go to war acted as the catalyst to the revolution, it was the
final element added to the mix that caused eruption.

The external factor of war was also evident in the French Revolution. The American
War evoked the rights of man and it stirred up great excitement in France.9 France
entered the American War of independence in 1778 and assisted in the victory of the
Americans seeking independence from Britain. The French joined the war as a way of
sucking up to America but all it really did was suck all of Frances resources and left
them weak. This took its toll on many peasantry and middle class citizens, people
were becoming starved as taxes and bread prices kept on rising; another factor added
on to the many causes of the revolution.
As both the Russian and French revolutions demonstrate, there are a wide variety of
factors that cause revolution and there is a pattern throughout both. The economy
8 Lionel Kochan, 1962
9 A. Goodwin, The French Revolution, 1953

was unstable, political leaders were not doing whats best for the country but whats
good for them, the influences of war taking their toll on society and lastly the unrest
and turmoil in the social classes that form the nation. Social issues, especially lack of
food, were one of the most significant of these as starvation of the peasantry in both
France and Russia was arguably the catalyst for the beginning of the overthrow of the
monarchy. However, revolutions do not occur due to one factor alone and the long
term issued existing in the social, political and economic structure of both France and
Russia must be considered to understand the cause of a revolution.
Bibliography:
Turning Points Chapter 2 The Reign of Terror in France, 1792-94
History in Depth The French Revolution
Challenge, Change and Continuity Chapter 5 The Decline and Fall of the Romanov
Dynasty
Turning Points Chapter 4 The Decline and Fall of the Romanov Dynasty
Wikipedia