Coordinating Professor: Conf. Univ. Dr.

Victor Rizescu
Course: Revolution and Social Conflict in History
Student: Radu-Alexandru Baltaceanu, SPE III.

Social Structure and Ideology in the Rival Interpretations

Of the Revolutionary Phenomenon
Case study: The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution

This paper analyzes the revolutionary phenomenon in two specific case studies, of grave
importance for the future development of the societies in which they occurred and not only,
namely the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917. Both moments
present similarities, mostly from an ideological point of view, as well as specific features, given
by the different interpretations of the revolutionary phenomenon of those who lead them and
eventually carried them out. Moreover, both the French Revolution and the Bolshevik
Revolution of October produced important consequences, not only in the countries in which they
started, but also at an international level. As such, it is the purpose of this article to present the
conditions which facilitated the appearance of the two revolutions, the changes which occurred
in the aftermath of the events, with regard to both the ideological developments, as well as the
transformations of the social structures in the two countries.
First of all, it is important to theoretically clarify the concept of revolution. According to
Samuel P. Huntington, a revolution is a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the
dominant values and myths of a society, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership,

and government activities and policies.1 This definition of the influent, conservative, political
scientist from the United States brings some light to the issue, in the sense that it describes the
changes which occur in the material arrangements of a given society, in the aftermath of a
revolutionary moment. However, there is something which the pragmatic American professor
did not mention, namely the explosive factor of any revolution, which is given by the long
expectancy of the revolutionaries, by their oppressed wishes and desires which had boiled for
many years and can now, finally, materialize. In this aspect, Lenin explains the spiritual aspect
of the revolutions much more accurate. He writes that revolutions are the festivals of the
oppressed and the exploited. At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come
forward so actively as creators of a new social order.2 It is clear that revolutions presuppose not
only the changes which occur in the institutional arrangements of a given society. They are signs
of deep transformations within the attitudes and values of the people. As such was the case in
both the before-mentioned revolutionary moments.

The French Revolution

The causes of the French Revolution are numerous and complex. First of all, the French
social structure of the end of the 18th century was based on the delimitation of three estates the
aristocracy, the clergy and the rest of the population. The nature of the revolution came from a
desire of legal equality for all citizens. This presupposed the taxation of all the social classes, not

1 Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1968), p. 264.
2 Stephan T. Possony, ed., The Lenin Reader (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1966), p.349.
2

only the ordinary people. Also, another factor was the international status of France, which was
lowered in comparison with the traditional British competitor.
There were however some previous attempts of reforming the Old Regime, but they
failed lamentably. One example is that of Turgot, who stood for an efficient exploitation of the
land, for free enterprise and trade, for a standardized, efficient administration of a single
homogeneous national territory, and the abolition of all restrictions and social inequalities which
stood in the way of the development of national resources and rational, equitable administration
and taxation.3 Given the failure of these reforms during the reign of Louis XVII, it was natural
that the suppressed desires of the people will eventually explode in an abrupt, violent revolt. And
that was exactly the case. Any revolution is the reaction to the failure of reform. Any society
which cannot transform itself from the top, will eventually end up transforming itself from the
bottom.
In the case of the French Revolution of 1789, the ideological transformations of the
society happened previously to the moment of the upheaval. As Theda Sckocpol writes in her
work France, Russia, China: a Structural Analysis of Social Revolutions: By the end of the
Old Regime, the French political system did not have a single ideology. Rather, it had two
sharply divergent yet coexisting ideologies that differed not only in their policy implications,
their modes of thought, and their pictures of society, but in their ultimate metaphysical
foundations4 The two antagonist ideologies which coexisted in the last years before 1789 in
France were, on the one hand, the monarchical ideology, with deep traditions in the absolutist
rule all over Europe, based on rigid laws and a hereditary transmission of power and on the other
hand, the ideology of reason, inspired by the ideas and principles of the Enlightenment. The
curios fact is that these two sets of ideas were opposed to each other, as the Enlightenment rose
3 Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Revolution 1789-1848, New York, Vintage Books, 1996, p. 55
4 Theda Sckocpol , France, Russia, China: a Structural Analysis of Social Revolutions
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1976, p.177
3

as a reaction to the traditional absolutist rule, emphasizing on the cult of reason and the treasury
of natural law. That is why the revolutionaries of 1789 set out to change the entire system of
values of the French people. They wanted to create, as in the case with the Bolsheviks, a new
man, with new ideas and a new culture. However, this also failed, regardless of the terror
imposed by the Jacobins, revealing yet another similarity with the Revolution of October 1917.

The Russian Revolution

The Russian Revolution of 1917 is one of the most important events of the 20th century,
with deep consequences both domestically and internationally. Like the French Revolution
before it, the Bolshevik Revolution has shaped the entire world. In the case of the latter, the
primal effects on the international stage were the facilitation of the beginning of the Second
World War, the start and maintenance of the Cold War and the shaping of an entire region, in the
post-war era, known as the Soviet bloc, by the imposition of communist regime in all the
countries East of the Iron Curtain.
Considering the conditions which facilitated the development of the Russian Revolution,
there are certain factors which must be mentioned. First of all, as in the case of France, the
decadence of the Russian Empire, on the international scene was one very important factor.
Combined with the harshening effort brought on by the First World War, the effect was fatal for
the government of Nikolai II, who saw himself obligated to abdicate. Immediately, the
revolutionary movement led by Lenin and Trotsky recognized the opportunity to put their
socialist ideal into practice. As such, the primal social classes which made the socialist
revolution were the nobility and the radical intelligentsia, contradicting the Marxist theory which
presupposed that the communist revolution will be the act of the proletariat, inspired by a sudden
awakening of the social consciousness. Moreover, even the social character of the socialist
revolution can be doubted. As the great historian Richard Pipes put it: it is clear that the Marxist
4

theory on revolution as an expression of social discontent (class discontent) does not hold.
Such discontent existed of course in Russia, as in any other country, but the direct and decisive
causes of the collapse of the regime and the following agitation were almost exclusively political
in nature5.
Ideologically, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was the product of a combination of at
least two elements. As the famous Harvard professor explained, the Marxist theory was
corroborated with the patrimonial elements specific to the Russian society, resulting in a
totalitarian regime which would change the world forever. Moreover, it may also be important to
note the interpretation of the revolutionary phenomenon by Lenin and Trotsky, which surely
shaped the final product. All in all, the ideological main view was, as in the case of the French
Revolution, the departure from the old system of values, the creation of a new socialist culture
and eventually a new socialist man.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the comparison between the Russian and the French revolutions reveals
some similarities in the rival interpretations of the revolutionary phenomenon, both from an
ideological and social point of view. Also, there are some other similarities in the conditions
which facilitated the appearance of the two upheavals, regarding both the position of the two
countries on the international scene at the moment of the revolutions and the economic and
social domestic situations. Moreover, both these revolutionary moments have marked the world
forever, presenting, as such, some similarities from the point of view of the consequences they
produced, firstly, in their own societies and secondly in the entire world.

5Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution, Humanitas, 1998, p.345
5

Bibliography
-

Stephan T. Possony, ed., The Lenin Reader (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company,
1966)

Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1968)

Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution, Humanitas, 1998

Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Revolution 1789-1848, New York, Vintage Books, 1996

Theda Sckocpol , France, Russia, China: a Structural Analysis of Social

Revolutions Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1976