Editor's Choice

What originates revolutions: oppression, weakening of authorities, new ideas, or activities of small groups?

Quick answer:

Revolutions are complex events often triggered by a combination of factors. Oppression and injustice can fuel discontent, but revolutions also require weakened authorities, new ideas, and organized leadership to succeed. Historical examples like the French and Russian Revolutions illustrate that these factors often interact. Economic issues, such as debt, also play a significant role, reflecting broader socioeconomic tensions. Thus, revolutions are usually the result of multiple, interconnected causes rather than a single factor.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In a sense, this is a false dichotomy. Something as dramatic and complex as a revolution rarely has a single cause. Instead, for a revolution to occur, a significant group must both want change and see change as feasible.

Oppression and injustice are root causes of revolutions. If people feel that they are prospering and well governed, they would have no motivations to revolt. Social, racial, ethnic, religious, economic, and political injustice are all potential causes of revolutions. Colonized societies often eventually revolt against colonial powers.

Next, for a revolution to succeed, it must be feasible. For example, a well-run authoritarian society may be so effective at suppressing dissent that it is impossible to revolt successfully. Weakening of political authorities or internal dissensions among rulers can give revolutionaries opportunities to stage a successful revolt.

Often, in a situation of weakened political authority and widespread discontent, new ideas arise. Discontent with...

Unlock
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

a current system must be paired with a vision of a future replacement system to enact an actual revolution rather than just riots and protests.

Finally, a revolution needs coherent leadership, in the form of one or more charismatic leaders and a small group of people who can help plan actions and forge a cohesive movement. Revolutions need to be organized; without organization, they will eventually fizzle out.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The French Revolution (1789–1799) and the Russian Revolution (1917) were both caused and strengthened by all four of the factors mentioned in your question.

First, oppression and injustice were widespread in prerevolutionary France and Russia. In France, there were still elements of feudalism. The strongest segments of French society were the clergy and the nobility. Together, these two groups accounted for a tiny percentage of the French population, but they dominated the nation and benefited from collecting taxes levied upon the peasantry. In Russia, the Romanov rulers and their favorites thrived while the rest of the nation remained desperately poor. Although Russia ended serfdom in 1861, the peasantry struggled economically.

Second, the political authorities were weakened in both countries—opening the way to revolution. In France, a bankrupt and indecisive king called the Estates General into session. This was risky, because it had not been in session since 1614. In Russia, the monarchy was weakened and discredited by huge losses in World War I and the misdeeds of Gregori Rasputin.

Third, new ideas fueled revolutionary fervor in both nations. In France, Enlightenment thinkers had challenged the traditional pillars of the state. In Russia, small groups of nihilists, anarchists, and Marxists undermined the government. These disparate groups in both nations rejected both the monarchy and the Church.

Finally, small groups played decisive roles in the revolutions. For example, in France, the Committee of Public Safety ushered in the most extreme phase of the French Revolution. In Russia, a small band of Bolsheviks successfully seized power.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

I don't think the cause of revolutions can be narrowed down to a single, dominant cause (indeed, consider that different revolutions will have different political contexts which inform them). Nonetheless, if we look at the major political revolutions of the modern era (the Russian and French Revolutions), one might be able to draw certain generalizations.

First of all, on the subject of oppression, I think the patterns are more complicated than the phrasing implies: after all, if we look at Nicholas II and Louis XVI, in both cases, we are looking at largely indecisive personalities, ill-equipped for leadership in an absolutist state. Oppression plays a role in fomenting unrest, but if you look at the examples of history's most powerful autocrats (for example, Louis XIV, Peter the Great, or Catherine the Great), what you tend to observe are revolts or rebellions being ruthlessly suppressed, with the State further consolidating and/or increasing its power in the aftermath. Historically speaking, while oppression is certainly a factor, it is often when that oppression is not being consistently imposed that one observes the conditions for revolution truly flourishing.

Beyond this, I would say there is often a multiplicity of causes at play. Ideology certainly plays a role—one only needs to look at the Enlightenment's influence in the French Revolution to observe this is the case—as does socioeconomic patterns. Revolutions tend to arise out of civic unrest and far deeper tensions within a society, which then demand radical changes to those political structures. I think it might be dangerous to generalize too much, however, because various revolutions will tend to have their own particular contexts from which they arise.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

This is a great question. There is a recent book out that actually deals with this very topic. The author is David Graebel and the book is called:The History of Debt: the First Five Thousand Years. This is an excellent book. I will add the blog. The author argues that revolutions take place chiefly on account of debt. When people are no longer able to pay their debts, there is a reshuffling that take place.

If you think about this thesis, it holds a lot of water these days. Think of what is happening in the Middle East. Much of this is due to rise of food prices, inflation and debt. Think about the Occupy Wall Street rallies around the world. The point is about debt and greed. If you think about the French Revolution, money was also a central issue. Finally, as we think about the problems in the West, much of it is about debt. It is all over the news. In light of this, I would say that revolutions take place mainly over debt. 

Approved by eNotes Editorial