Revolution: historical causes, impacts, and outcomes

Russian/French Revolution

The nature of Revolution is both social and political. What begins as a social movement in order to give the masses or the lower economic classes a better chance in life can turn to a political movement because of the seizure of power in order to affect change. The French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917 have similar causes. In both cases, a long-established monarchy fell, and the repressed working classes hoped and believed they would have a better life as a result. Sadly, both revolutions are most notable for what happened after the official fighting ended. In France, the resulting rise of Napoleon and the Napoleonic wars seriously diminished the glorious mood of the revolution. In Russia, the rise of Lenin and Communism did not provide the happy ending for which the revolutionaries and the people of Russia had hoped.

The famous French Revolution happened on the heels of the American Revolution which inspired the French in many ways. The fledgling United States resisted the tyranny of a monarch, organized a militia, and fought off a much greater military power. It was not a "civil war" in the sense that it was two sides against each other in one country, but it was a colony rejecting its "mother country." "The success of the American Revolution strengthened the faith of those who accepted the principles of the philosophes. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed the legitimacy of rebellion against a government contemptuous of the natural rights of man. The Constitution of the United States seemed the triumph of rationalism in politics" (Gershoy 79-80). In France, the situation was different, but the similar aspect of rejecting a monarch, embracing the power of the masses, and the hope of a better life was enough to admit encouragement. The influence of the Age of Reason or the Age of Enlightenment is, at least, part of the explanation for the French Revolution. "The Age of Reason was then neither simple nor uniform, yet the cumulative effort of its great spokesmen produced a revolution in men's minds and expressed in many intellectual formulas a new spirit that was far removed from the dominant ideas inherited from the Middle Ages" (Gershoy 57).

The French Revolution had been brewing for some time. The wealth of the monarchy compared to the relative poverty of the lower classes had caused a dissatisfaction that was growing exponentially. When Louis XVI took over the throne in 1774, he inherited some powerful problems such as "a peasantry bitter in its grievances; a bourgeoisie restive under its many restrictions; privileged class and corporate interests at odds with each other but united in their parasitism upon the nation; a government discredited by its ruinous foreign policy, its financial extravagances, and its administrative inefficiency and corruption; and a powerful public opinion that scourged the government for its weakness and its errors of policy and assailed the very theory of absolutist government" (Gershoy 3). The peasants had suffered under the yoke of a feudal system for years that gave the ruling classes control over their land and their lives. Because France was such an agrarian society, the condition of the peasantry involved in agriculture is a vital part of the discontent that led up to the revolution.

The power of the church, too, served only to impoverish further the lower classes and reinforce the rights and status of the monarchy. "The clergy made up the first class or 'Estate' of France, and the church, that is, the corporation of the clergy, was the most influential corporate body in the kingdom. As such it exercised an extraordinary influence in governmental administration" (Gershoy 28). The church also owned large tracts of land in France that were not cultivated for agricultural use and were, therefore, useless in the eyes of the impoverished and hungry peasantry. The relatively easy and idle life of the clergy was a source of growing anger for the hardworking and poor lower classes.

There is no doubt that a growing social, economic, and religious disgruntlement led to the removal of the monarchical system of government that had oppressed people and failed to serve the needs of the masses for years. "Under these circumstances the lot of the average peasant in normal times was at best precarious. It has been estimated that more than twenty per cent of the rural peasantry was indigent in times of plenty...but the constant and continuous factors which depressed the condition of the peasantry do not alone explain the situation" (Gershoy 50). It was, indeed, worse than that. A time of agricultural crisis could have a disastrous effect and "then, more than ever, [the peasants] joined the ranks of the beggars and vagrants who overran the roads, pillaging the hamlets and terrorizing the inhabitants. In the face of such crushing poverty private relief was impotent, ecclesiastical relief pitifully inadequate, and governmental alms and charity hopelessly meager...In the three years immediately preceding the Revolution the distress of the populace, both in the country and in the towns, reached heights of intensity fully as great as at any earlier period of French history" (Gershoy 50-51). Indeed, any more aggravating factors were more than enough to push the country into revolution. "The Revolution of 1789 did not come without warning, for signs of imminent upheaval began to accumulate after 1787. First the textile market collapsed, leaving thousands of men, women, and children unemployed. Then in 1788 the price of grain began to climb inexorably. At the same time, the national government was experimenting with a hodgepodge of administrative and political reforms designed to avert impending national bankruptcy. Taken together, the economic crisis and political tinkering bred an atmosphere of urgency" (Hunt 39).

The causes of the revolution were clear to the "old regime" in power and they took some small steps toward reform to mollify the lower classes. Allowing the election of representatives from the "Third Estate," appeared to promise some measure of power to the formerly powerless. The new delegates headed for Versailles with high hopes, "they advanced confidently, rich in the faith that by their actions they would usher in a new era for France and all humanity" (Gershoy 106). When the third estate delegates arrived in Versailles in May, 1789, though, they were met with disappointment. The cold reception of the King and the obvious signs of their inferiority flew in the face of their hopes and caused the rumblings of revolution that would erupt with the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789. "The fall of the Bastille was not the spark that ignited the provinces of France, for the provinces were already aflame before the news reached the peasantry" (Gershoy 119).

The Revolution of 1917 in Russia had causal elements that were not unlike the French Revolution of 1789. Like France, Russia had long endured under a monarchical system that did not give power or consideration to the lower classes. The Russian revolution was "the culmination of a long period of repression and unrest. From the time of Peter I (Peter the Great), the czardom increasingly became an autocratic bureaucracy that imposed its will on the people by force, with wanton disregard for human life and liberty" (Columbia). Clearly, the chain of social and economic frustrations that had its roots in the monarchy was the factor that touched off the Russian Revolution in a similar manner to the French Revolution. Some attempted reforms also occurred along the way. "The reforms of Alexander II brought the emancipation of the serfs and opened the way for industrial development. However, emancipation imposed harsh economic conditions on the peasants and did not satisfy their need for farmland" (Columbia). The working classes continued to be and feel exploited and their unrest began to develop a direction.

The Russian Revolution was influenced by the rest of the world in a philosophical manner. "As Western technology was adopted by the czars, Western humanitarian ideals were acquired by a group of educated Russians. Among this growing intelligentsia, the majority of whom were abstractly humanitarian and democratic, there were also those who were politically radical and even revolutionary" (Columbia). Of course, the widely read Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels was in circulation and it took up the cause for the proletariat class and spoke in revolutionary language of the social change that needed to occur in Europe. Even the reforms during Alexander II's reign that increased industrialization had the effect of increasing the ideological fervor of the nation's reformers because "Industrialization concentrated people in urban centers, where the exploited working class was a receptive audience for radical ideas" (Columbia). Such a philosophical climate combined with economic and social frustrations had the same effect that it did in France over 100 years earlier. Russia even had "a reactionary and often ignorant clergy" that "kept religion static and persecuted religious dissenters" (Columbia). The idolatry of the clergy was not the issue like it was in France, but their general ineptitude in helping people made them a force for change in a negative way.

The Revolutions of both France and Russia had many waves and stages. In France, the election and then disappointment of the third estate led to actual bloody revolution and then a series of regimes including the infamous Napoleonic leadership. Russia endured several waves of revolution, too, beginning notably with the failed revolution of 1905. In his famous work The History of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky discussed the nature of revolution itself. He said, "A Revolution takes place only when there is no other way out. And the insurrection, which rises above a revolution like a peak in the mountain's chain of events, can be no more evoked at will than the revolution as a whole. The masses advance and retreat several times before they make up their minds to the final assault" (Kreis 1). His comments about revolution are especially apt because he notes the rise of fall of the tide of revolution and the desperate state to which people are pushed before they will revolt.

The most notable leader who emerged from the Russian Revolution was Vladimir Lenin who was part of the failed 1905 Revolution and then an instigator in the 1917 revolution. He is evidence of the ebb and flow of revolution and also evidence of the need for "insurrection" as Trotsky phrased it. Lenin was not content to allow the reforms and voting promised in early 1917 by the removal of the tsar. He was the force behind the October 24, 1917, coup that quietly took over the Winter Palace and other government buildings. His passion for the revolution is part of the reason for its relative success in beginning a new government and causing the era of the Soviet Union and communist rule. Lenin took advantage of the right moment in time to call up the frustrations and passions of a dispirited people and urge them to lasting revolution. In a letter to his wife written in early October when his Bolshevik party was on the verge of seizing power, he urged the necessity of immediate action. He explained, "seizure of power is the point of the uprising; its political task will be clarified after the seizure. It would be a disaster or formalism to wait for the uncertain voting of November 7. The people have a right and a duty to decide such questions not by voting but by force [...] This has been proven by the history of all revolutions, and the crime of revolutionists would be limitless if they let go the proper moment, knowing that upon them depends the saving of the revolution [...] The government is tottering. We must deal it the death blow at any cost" (Kreis). Such revolutionary language shows the importance of strong leadership, the necessity of riling up the people, and the delicate timing that is necessary in having a successful revolution.