What is a Revolution?

The concept of revolution as a force that overturns established traditions, inaugurates a new era, and promotes progress emerged in the late eighteenth century. It was first used to describe the overthrow of monarchies and the establishment of national republics during the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789.

Although the term “revolution” is also applied to rapid and transformative developments in culture, science, and technology—such as the Industrial Revolution, the Green Revolution, the Neolithic Revolution, and the Scientific Revolution—this discussion focuses exclusively on profound changes in the social and political spheres.

In the social sciences, revolution most commonly refers to major and abrupt transformations of political regimes. These events are classified as political revolutions when they significantly alter governmental institutions while leaving the broader economic and social structures largely unchanged. By contrast, they are termed social revolutions (or great revolutions) when they reshape not only political institutions but also the economic system, social hierarchy, religious roles, and prevailing beliefs and symbols related to authority and national identity.

Various forms of political conflict—including rebellions, mass protests, civil wars, and coups d’état—can bring about political change if successful. However, only some of these developments lead to social revolutions. While revolutions often involve one or more of these events, neither individually nor collectively do they automatically constitute a revolution. What distinguishes a revolution is not simply a challenge to political authority or a struggle for power, but a deliberate effort to transform a society’s fundamental political, economic, or religious institutions.

A defining feature of social revolutions is the simultaneous and mutually reinforcing transformation of social and political structures, as noted by Skocpol (1979). Although the term itself is relatively modern, revolutionary processes can be traced back to ancient times. The distinctly modern understanding of revolution that developed during the eighteenth century viewed it as a permanent and progressive transformation of the entire social order. Revolutions were seen as mechanisms for replacing outdated and unjust political, economic, religious, and social institutions with a new system grounded in reason and rational principles.

       The Social Conditions that are Condusive for Revolution

Revolutions typically emerge when several key conditions converge to undermine the stability and legitimacy of a political regime. The first condition is a crisis of state authority, which may result from fiscal problems, military defeats, succession disputes, corruption, or growing religious and nationalist opposition. Second, divisions among political, military, economic, or religious elites weaken the regime, especially when influential figures defect to the opposition. Third, economic hardships that are perceived as unfair and attributed to government failures can generate widespread popular discontent. Fourth, a shared culture of opposition develops, bringing together diverse social groups around common ideologies, symbols, and historical narratives that justify resistance to the state. In some cases, international factors such as foreign conflicts, alliances, or external support for opposition movements further contribute to revolutionary situations.

These conditions rarely arise solely through the efforts of revolutionary movements. More often, governments themselves create or intensify them through poor decisions, repression, financial mismanagement, or military failures. As a result, revolutions often appear unexpectedly, emerging from the interaction of state actions, elite conflicts, social grievances, and changing international circumstances.

An important modern phenomenon is the “revolution of rising expectations.” Historically, poor populations compared their living conditions mainly with those of previous generations or nearby communities. However, advances in communication, travel, and global media have exposed people in developing regions to higher standards of living and democratic practices elsewhere. Consequently, citizens increasingly expect governments to provide economic opportunities, social progress, and political participation. When governments are perceived as blocking these aspirations through repression, corruption, or ineffective policies, popular frustration may contribute to revolutionary movements, especially when combined with state weakness and elite defections.

Historically, many major revolutions—including those in France, Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Nicaragua—occurred in predominantly agrarian societies with relatively underdeveloped economies. Such states were particularly vulnerable to military defeats and fiscal crises. A crucial factor in determining a state’s resilience was its autonomy from powerful elites. Governments that depended heavily on nobles, landlords, or religious authorities often struggled to raise resources and implement reforms. When elites resisted state efforts to address fiscal or military challenges, severe political crises could develop, creating opportunities for revolution. In some cases, these crises led not to mass revolutions but to elite-led transformations, such as the Meiji Restoration in Japan and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s reforms in Turkey.

Another particularly vulnerable type of regime is the neopatrimonial state, where power is concentrated in a dictator and maintained through personal patronage networks rather than strong institutions. Examples include pre-revolutionary Mexico, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Because such systems often exclude meaningful political participation and resist reform, they become susceptible to revolutionary overthrow, especially when external support declines.

Scholars have also emphasized the role of demographic pressures. Population growth in agrarian societies often strained administrative systems, contributed to inflation and fiscal crises, intensified elite conflicts, and undermined confidence in ruling authorities. While industrialization and urbanization enabled many modern states to manage these challenges more effectively, many developing countries continued to experience population pressures that contributed to state instability.

Although modern capitalist societies have faced severe economic crises, they have generally avoided revolutions. Democratic systems are less vulnerable because they incorporate potential challengers through political participation and representation. Furthermore, unlike agrarian societies where peasants constituted the majority and often played a decisive revolutionary role, industrial workers in advanced capitalist societies have been less numerous and less capable of generating revolutionary upheaval on a comparable scale.

                                    Types of Revolutions

Revolutions can take a variety of forms, each shaped by distinct objectives and historical circumstances. Constitutional revolutions sought to replace traditional monarchies and empires with republics governed by written constitutions. These constitutions were designed to limit state authority, abolish the privileges of hereditary elites, and establish the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Notable examples include the American Revolution (1776), the French Revolution (1789), the Revolutions of 1848 in France, Germany, and Austria, the Turkish Revolution (1919), the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905), and the Chinese Republican Revolution (1911).

Anticolonial revolutions aimed to end foreign domination and establish independent states. Nationalist identities often served as powerful tools for mobilizing resistance and legitimizing new institutions of self-government. In many cases, however, these nationalist traditions were newly constructed by political elites, and independence sometimes resulted in the transfer of power to local elites rather than the establishment of broad-based democratic rule. Significant examples include the Latin American revolutions (1808–1828), the Vietnamese Revolution (1954), the Algerian Revolution (1962), the Indian independence movement (1947), and the revolutions in Mozambique and Angola (1974).

Fascist revolutions likewise drew upon nationalist sentiments, but they employed them to mobilize popular support for authoritarian regimes that replaced fragile monarchies or republics. Important examples include Italy (1921–1922) and Germany (1933).

Communist revolutions, inspired by the theories of Karl Marx, sought to overthrow existing political systems and establish one-party states based on the abolition of private property. These revolutions often produced centralized dictatorships that dismantled traditional economic elites in the name of popular rule. Major examples include the Russian Revolution (1917), the Chinese Revolution (1949), and the Cuban Revolution (1959).

Antidictatorial revolutions emerged in response to the corruption, repression, or failures of modernizing authoritarian regimes. Their goal was to create new political orders founded either on constitutional governance or alternative forms of centralized rule. Prominent examples include the Mexican Revolution (1910–1911), the Nicaraguan Revolution (1979), and the People Power Revolution in the Philippines (1986).

Some revolutionary movements combined characteristics of multiple categories. The Vietnamese Revolution, for instance, was both anticolonial and communist in nature. Other revolutions were unique and do not fit neatly into any single category. The South African anti-apartheid revolution (1994) transformed a racially exclusive political system into a multiracial democracy, while the Iranian Islamic Revolution (1979) replaced a modernizing monarchy with a political system that combined elected institutions with the authority of unelected religious leaders.

In recent decades, a new form of revolutionary change has emerged in the shape of “people power” or “color” revolutions. These movements succeeded in removing authoritarian rulers primarily through large-scale nonviolent mobilization rather than armed struggle. They relied on mass demonstrations and symbols of national unity and democratic opposition, often represented by distinctive colors, flowers, or other visual emblems. Examples include the People Power Revolution in the Philippines (1986), the overthrow of the Milošević regime in Serbia (2000), the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), the Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003), and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (2005). Similar movements include the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia (1989) and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon (2005).

                      Marxist Approaches to Revolutions

Karl Marx viewed modern revolutions as products of economic development and structural contradictions within society. He argued that revolutionary situations emerge when tensions between the forces of production—the methods and technologies through which goods are produced—and the relations of production—the social arrangements governing the distribution of wealth and labor—can no longer be reconciled within an existing economic system. When, at some historical moment, the development of material forces of production exceeds the existing relations of production, then conditions are created for a change in the relations of production, and this leads to their sudden change. Marx calls such sudden changes "social revolutions." After the transformation of the relations of production, gradually, but inevitably, the entire social superstructure is reshaped. The speed and degree of change in the social superstructure cannot be precisely determined, because there is ideological resistance to changes in the social superstructure. Marx summarizes this process as follows:

„No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation“ (Marx, 1859).

Marx believed that revolutions fundamentally reshape social and economic relations, creating the foundations for further historical development. By transforming systems of property ownership, state institutions, and political ideologies, revolutions facilitate the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Marx famously regarded revolutions as the “locomotives of history,” driving societies toward new stages of economic and social organization.

Class conflict is another main driver of revolutions in Marx’s theory. Marx distinguishes between "class in itself" and "class for itself." A class for itself arises when there is a spread of a single "class consciousness", i.e. when all or most members of a class become fully aware of common „class interests“ and recognize a common „class enemy“. In addition, members of the class must become aware that only by joint action against class enemies can they achieve „common class goals“, but also take concrete practical measures to achieve class interests through „class struggle“. The relationship between opposing classes is always, in every society and every historical period, a relationship of conflict. These conflicts are sometimes hidden, and sometimes there is a completely open struggle. When there is a complete conflict of classes, there is either a revolutionary reconstruction of society as a whole or a common collapse of the conflicting classes. Marx believed that the class struggle was the basic mover and determinant of complete human history. Under feudalism, the principal conflict was between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. Under capitalism, different social groups occupied distinct positions that shaped their political behavior. Some groups, such as the petty bourgeoisie, would become invested in the capitalist system and align with the ruling bourgeoisie. Others, such as the peasantry, lacked the cohesion necessary for sustained revolutionary action. In contrast, Marx regarded the industrial proletariat as the primary agent of socialist revolution. Concentrated in urban centers and subjected to common forms of exploitation, workers would develop class consciousness—a shared awareness of their collective interests and oppression. Although class consciousness alone could not guarantee revolution, Marx considered it an essential precondition for revolutionary change.

For Marx, the origins of the French Revolution lay in the growing conflict between the restrictions imposed by feudal institutions and the expanding capitalist practices promoted by the rising bourgeoisie. As economic change advanced, the interests of the dominant feudal aristocracy increasingly clashed with those of the emerging capitalist class, creating conditions for revolutionary transformation.

Vladimir Lenin, in the book What Is to Be Done? (1902), presented his view of the best practical strategy for revolutionary Marxists to come to power. He decisively rejects all strategies of gradual or evolutionary implementation of socialism and resolutely defends revolutionary strategy as the only correct strategy for socialism to come to power. Lenin believes that ordinary workers are often only interested in short-term economic improvements to their position and that they, therefore, develop a self-awareness that supports the union's goals. To develop a true class consciousness among the workers, and overcome the divisions that exist between the workers, an organized, disciplined, and centralized party must be formed in all capitalist societies, which will be led by the most militant and class-conscious members, and which will strictly adhere to orthodox Marxist principles and then transfer those principles to the entire proletariat. A centralized revolutionary party is the best way to carry out a successful socialist revolution and then introduce the "dictatorship of the proletariat". In the book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Lenin argues that Western capitalism postponed the anti-capitalist revolution by starting the exploitation of colonies and semi-colonies.

Luxemburg criticized Marx, as she thought that capitalism was much more prone to crises caused by a lack of effective demand. Luxemburg deemed that capital’s quest for surplus value would lead to society’s fall into “barbarism”; hence, the socialist revolution was inevitable to avoid that path. But her views on the best way to achieve revolution were different from Lenin’s view on revolution, as she opposed his insistence on centralism and primacy of the party in directing evolution and establishment of post-capitalist society. In her view, spontaneity and radicalization from below have to be primary features of the working class movement and its revolution. Luxemburg differed from Lenin in one more way, as she did not support nationalist movements in Europe or in the colonies, because she saw those movements as reactionary nationalistic diversion from the universal struggle for socialism.    

            Other Theoretical Approaches to Revolutions

In his article Agents of Revolution: Elite Conflicts and Mass Mobilization from the Medici to Yeltsin (1997), Richard Lachmann emphasizes the crucial role of elites in the emergence and success of revolutions. He argues that revolutionary outcomes can best be understood through the interaction between elite cohesion or division and the degree of popular mobilization. According to Lachmann, regimes governed by unified elites are generally resistant to revolutionary challenges, even when confronted with widespread public opposition. Examples include the failed uprisings in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. By contrast, revolutions are more likely to succeed when significant divisions emerge among ruling elites, creating opportunities for mass movements to challenge the existing order. The French Revolution illustrates this dynamic, as elite conflict combined with popular mobilization to bring about profound political change.

In his book Ancient Regime and the Revolution (1856), Tocqueville examines how the collapse of the aristocratic order and the revolution in France took place, as well as the long-term consequences of those events. Citing the reasons for the outbreak of the French Revolution, he singles out several factors. Conflicts within the aristocratic elite, conflicts between the aristocracy and the growing bourgeoisie, the spread of freedom and equality among the citizenry, the excessive centralization of administrative and political power by the crown, and the financial crisis in the decade before the Revolution were the most important contributing factors. to make the change of the old regime certain. Tocqueville especially emphasizes the disastrous influence of political centralization on political and social institutions that acted as a link between the government and ordinary people - craft guilds, local assemblies, and others. Centralization, restriction of political freedoms, abolition of intermediary institutions, and weakening of local public political life led to excessive individualism, atomization of society, and general dissatisfaction in all classes.

The later failure of the development of democracy in the post-revolutionary period, Tocqueville attributes to the aspirations of both the republican and monarchical regimes in France to continue with the bureaucratic centralization of state power. In France, there was a sharp equalization of the social hierarchy after the French Revolution, but at the same time the institutions that enabled the integration of individuals into the wider society were disbanded, and this led to revolutionary despotism. The revolution drastically diminished the position and influence of the Catholic Church, which had previously acted as a unifying factor, and thus represented an obstacle to the development of complete individualism. In the post-revolutionary period, no institution could substitute the unifying action of the Catholic Church.

In her book On Revolution (1963b), Hannah Arendt studies the different historical paths of the American and French revolutions. In France, due to great poverty and hunger, revolutionaries were more focused on achieving economic and material goals and less on achieving freedom, while American colonists lived in economic prosperity and sought only to achieve political freedom. The differences in these initial conditions of the two revolutions led to a completely different development of political life in these two countries, and Arendt believes that only the American Revolution was successful.

John Markoff (1996) demonstrates that the abolition of feudalism during the French Revolution was not an inevitable consequence of the state's fiscal crisis. Instead, it resulted from a complex and contingent interaction among rural uprisings, popular unrest in Paris, and legislative responses. This perspective highlights the importance of political processes and collective action in shaping revolutionary outcomes. Hans Freyer argues that the survival of the feudal society depends on the ability of the ruling caste to use force and prevent rebellions. Since it is built on inequality and domination, the feudal order constantly carries the germ of conflict and revolution.

In the book States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (1979), Theda Skocpol examines how the activities of the state, as an independent actor, influenced the revolutions in France (1788), China (1911), and Russia (1917). Skocpol is very critical of earlier Marxist theories of revolutions because they overemphasized the importance of class conflict and neglected the activities and role of the state in revolutions. Before the outbreak of the revolutions, all three states were absolute monarchies with administrative and military hierarchies that maintained centralized control.

All three states were agrarian states with large peasant populations, were economically stagnant and had fiscal problems, suffered external military threats or defeats, and had inadequate administration and centralized management. The large peasant population, which was very poor in all three states and was very dissatisfied in such a situation, really was a source of class conflict, as earlier Marxists stated. Economic stagnation only increased the dissatisfaction of the peasant population. External military threats and defeats caused great negative social and economic consequences and deepened the crisis.

Although the state, led by an absolutist monarch, exercised its power over the population in a centralized and repressive manner, its real control over society was weak. The inability of the state and its administration to reform, in line with unfavorable external and internal circumstances, inevitably led to the success of the revolutions in all three states. In her analysis, Skocpol doesn’t pay attention to the activities of concrete individual actors when she studies the success of revolutions. She even diminishes the importance of class conflict and peasant dissatisfaction, because these factors always exist in every agrarian state; it is only a question of how each state organizes its actions in order to control those conflicts and dissatisfaction.

In the book The Black Jacobins (1938), James Cyril L. R. studies the revolt of African slaves on the island of Santa Domingo, which was a French colony, and the product of that revolt was the creation of the independent state of Haiti in 1803. He describes the political strength of different races, the relations between them, the circumstances that caused the rebellion, as well as the consequences of the revolution. He believes that the success of the uprising and the gaining of Haiti's independence had a great impact on the French and British empires, but also on the United States.

In the book Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century, Eric Wolf examines how peasant resistance contributed to the revolutionary transformations of the regime in Mexico, Russia, China, Vietnam, Algeria, and Cuba. He concludes that peasant resistance, most often, results in the return to the previous state, and doesn’t lead to complete changes in the society.

Pitirim Sorokin, in Social and Cultural Dynamics, 4 vols. (1937-1941), researched social conflicts very extensively, on the example of 967 wars and 1,622 internal conflicts throughout two and a half thousand years. He argues that social revolutions are characterized by a destructive phase, when, in addition to the use of physical force, the basic values ​​and institutions of society are destroyed. The destructive phase is characterized by an increase in mental illness and the spread of mass psychology. After the destructive phase, there is a partial re-establishment of previously existing values ​​and institutions. In addition to similarities in basic cultural values ​​between different segments of society, increased solidarity and reduced hostility are influenced by the prevalence of values ​​that emphasize compassion and mutual assistance, while values ​​that emphasize selfishness and competitive spirit lead to reduced solidarity and increased hostility and conflict.

In his book Reason and Revolution (1941), Herbert Marcuse explores the dialectical method of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Marx. Marcuse also distances himself from Marx by abandoning the idea that it is the working class that has the historical task of transforming society. Marx hoped that industrialization would accelerate the social and economic processes that would lead to workers' revolutions. However, such a prediction did not come true, because in the West there was a strengthening of social democracy, which led the working class to give up revolutionary aspirations, while, on the other hand, in the Soviet Union, industrialization contributed to increased repression and exploitation.

Barrington Jr. Moore conducted a major socio-historical study, which is presented in the book Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship (1966). He explored how historical and social conditions, and above all, the dominant type of economy and class system and class relations, in six countries (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China, and India) influenced the path to democracy or dictatorship, which each of these countries took in the twentieth century. Although Moore accepted some Marxist categories and the general view of deterministic relations between economics and society, he did not accept Marx's universal patterns of historical periods.

Moore believed that achieving democracy in a country mostly depends on the readiness of the bourgeoisie and landowners to accept the commercialization of agriculture. The commercialization of agriculture leads to the formation of an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the landowners, which leads to the collapse of the traditional peasant-agricultural community. If there is no collapse of peasant communities, then there are peasant-agricultural revolutions, such as those in Russia and China. As peasants tend to support undemocratic ideologues, such leaders come to power after revolutions and establish dictatorships. Japan, where the commercialization of agriculture was not carried out, managed to avoid the peasant revolution by including peasant communities in the wider economic and social order. In his later books, Moore dealt with the question of the possibility of building a more tolerant and egalitarian society in the modern world.

In Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (1993), Jack Goldstone aims to explain the causes and consequences of revolutions. He identifies a recurring pattern behind revolutions across both European and non-European societies. His central argument is that major revolutions are driven by cyclical demographic pressures interacting with shared structural features of agrarian-bureaucratic states. In particular, population growth sets off a chain reaction: fiscal crises in the state, conflicts within elites and between elites and the state, rising popular unrest, and the emergence of transformative ideologies. Goldstone presents revolutions as the result of gradual, long-term processes operating across multiple levels, which eventually culminate in sudden and dramatic change. He also shows that social movements and protests often arise from similar conditions, with revolutions occurring when mass mobilization gains broad support and the state responds weakly or inconsistently.

He challenges the idea that events like the French Revolution represent a decisive shift to a new mode of production. Instead, he interprets revolutions primarily as crises of state breakdown in agrarian societies. The same patterns, he argues, apply globally, including in societies often seen as following different paths to modernization. According to Goldstone, any new forms of social organization that emerge after revolutions depend largely on cultural contexts and elite alignments. In many cases, especially where conservative elites remain influential, revolutions lead to a reassertion of traditional practices rather than radical change. Even major revolutions did not completely break with the past or eliminate existing elites. At most, they initiated prolonged struggles among ideologies and elites, eventually contributing—often after further upheaval—to the gradual development of more stable political institutions.

Goldstone, in his book Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History 1500–1850 (2008) challenges the idea that the origins of industrialization can be attributed solely to capitalism or revolutions. A combination of specific circumstances that existed only in seventeenth and eighteenth century England – religious tolerance, the advent of Newtonian physics, scientific experimentation, a high level of machine construction and widespread mechanical knowledge, and a social atmosphere that promoted cooperation between artisans, philosophers, and entrepreneurs – enabled industrialization.

In Vendée (1964), Charles Tilly studies the reasons why the beginning of the counter-revolution (after the French Revolution of 1789) was located in the French region of Vendée. He compared the specific sociological characteristics of rural society in Vendée with those in the Anjou region. He found that complex and changing relations between feudal lords and peasants had developed in the Vendée region. In addition, urbanization influenced the aristocracy and clergy of this region to develop specific interests, which influenced the different reactions of these two classes to the Revolution, compared to the same classes in other regions.

In the book From Mobilization to Revolution (1978), Tilly studies the process of formation and transformation of collective action and creates a theoretical and methodological model for studying social movements and social change. He believes that it is necessary to study the specific context of each collective action so that it can be understood. The most important aspects of the context are the existence of common interests among different actors so that they can be mobilized into a common front. The movements changed their demands over time; while they previously fought against certain measures or policies, they later became proactive and began to emphasize completely new demands. The main factors influencing the operation of social movements are interests, organization, and opportunities. Interests affect the organization of the movement, and both of these factors then affect the mobilization of resources for collective action. He introduced the notion of the "action repertoire of the movement", which refers to the strategic re-examination of the relationship between gains and losses that occurs in conflict with the authorities. Tilly believes that collective action is rational and goal-oriented, rather than random and chaotic, so collective actors always question whether their activity will lead to greater benefit or harm to their interests. This collective rationality is not based on individual rationality or individual aspirations but arises from the social relations that rebellious individuals enter into.

Tilly studies revolutions in the book European Revolutions: 1492–1992 (1993) and concludes that his theory of the relationship of interests, organization, and possibilities for the emergence and development of collective action applies to European revolutions, as well as explaining their course and their success and consequences. In Roads from Past to Future (1997), he emphasizes the importance of successful revolutions for the creation of modern states and modern capitalism. The author shifts the focus of his study from institutional and other factors that influence the emergence and development of collective action to the importance of successful collective action for the emergence of completely new institutional frameworks

References:

Acton, John.  Lectures on French Revolution (1910);

Arendt. On Revolution (1963);

Davies, J. C. “Toward a Theory of Revolution”, in American Sociological Review (1962);

DeFronzo, J. Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements (1991);

Eckstein, Susan. The Impact of Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of Mexico and Bolivia (1976);

Eisenstadt, S. N. Revolution and the Transformation of Societies (1978);

     -     Revolution and the Transformation of Societies: A Comparative Study of Civilizations (1978);

Farhi, Farideh. States and Urban-Based Revolutions: Iran and Nicaragua (1990);

Foran, J. Taking Power: On the Origins of Third World Revolutions (2005);

Foran, J. & Goodwin, J. “Revolutionary Outcomes in Iran and Nicaragua: Coalition Fragmentation,

War, and the Limits of Social Transformation”, in Theory and Society (1993);

Foran, J., Klouzal, L., & Rivera [now Reed], J.-P. “Who Makes Revolutions? Class, Gender,

and Race in the Mexican, Cuban, and Nicaraguan Revolutions”, in Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change (1997);

Foran, John (ed.). Theorizing Revolutions (1997);

Goldman. My Disillusionment in Russia (1923);

Goldstone, Jack A. Revolutions (1986);

     -     Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (1991);

     -     Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (1991);

     -      “Prison Riots as Micro-Revolutions: An Extension of State-Centered Theories of Revolution.” American Journal of Sociology (1999);

     -      “Efflorescences and Economic Growth in World History: Rethinking the ‘Rise of the West’ and the British Industrial Revolution.” Journal of World History (2002);

     -     Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies (2003);

     -      “Understanding the Revolutions of 2011: Weakness and Resilience in Middle Eastern Autocracies”, in Foreign Affairs (2011);

     -     Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction (2014);

     -     Handbook of Revolutions in the 21st Century. The New Waves of Revolutions, and the Causes and Effects of Disruptive Political Change (2022);

Goodwin, Jeff, and Theda Skocpol. ‘‘Explaining Revolutions in the Contemporary Third World’’, in Politics and Society (1989);

Goodwin, Jeffrey. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945–1991. (2001);

Gramsci. Prison Notebooks (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) (2011, in Italian 1947);

Huntington, Samuel P. Political Order in Changing Societies (1968);

Kampwirth, K. Women and Guerrilla Movements: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chiapas, Cuba (2002);

Korotayev, Andrey, Andrew Zhdanov and Vadim Ustyuzhanin. “Revolution and Democracy in the Twenty-First Century”, in Cross-Cultural Research (2024);

James C. World Revolution 1917–1936: The Rise and Fall of the Communist International (1937);

     -     The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution (1938);

Lachman, Richard. "Agents of Revolution: Elite Conflicts and Mass Mobilization from the Medici to Yeltsin", in Foran, John (ed.). Theorizing Revolutions (1997);

Lasch, Christopher. The American Liberals and the Russian Revolution (1962);

Le Bon, Gustave. The Psychology of Revolution (1912);  

     -     The World in Revolt (1920);

Luxemburg, Rosa. Social Reform or Revolution? (1899);

     -     The Russian Revolution (1918);

Mann. The Sources of Social Power, Volume 3: Global Empires and Revolution, 1890-1945 (2012);

Marcuse. Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (1941);

Markoff, John. The Abolition of Feudalism (1996);

Martin. Forbidden Revolutions: Pentecostalism in Latin American and Catholicism in Eastern Europe (1996);

Marx. A Contribution to The Critique Of The Political Economy (in German 1859);

McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. To Map Contentious Politics. Mobilization (1996);

Mills. Listen, Yankee! The Revolution in Cuba (1960);

Moore. Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (1966);

Ortega y Gasset. The Revolt of the Masses (1994, in Spanish 1929);

Pareto. The Rise and Fall of Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology (1991, in Italian 1900);

Paige, J. M. Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World (1975);

Parsa, M. States, Ideologies, and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of Iran, Nicaragua, and the Philippines (2000);

Ragin, C. C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (1987);

Reed, J.-P. & Foran, J. “Political Cultures of Opposition: Exploring Idioms, Ideologies, and

Revolutionary Agency in the Case of Nicaragua”, in Critical Sociology (2002);

Rowbotham. Women, Resistance and Revolution (1972); 

Sanderson. Revolutions: A Worldwide Introduction to Social and Political Contention (2005);

Selbin, Eric. Modern Latin American Revolutions (1999);

Shanin. Russia 1905-07: Revolution as a Moment of Truth (1986);

Shayne, J. D. The Revolution Question: Feminisms in El Salvador, Chile, and Cuba (2004);

Skocpol. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (1979);

     -     Social Revolutions in the Modern World (1994);

Sorokin. Sociology of Revolutions (1925);

     -     Social and Cultural Dynamics, 4 vols. (1937-1941);

     -     Man and Society in Calamity: The Effects of War, Revolution, Famine, Pestilence Upon Human Mind, Behavior, Social Organization and Cultural Life (1942);

Spengler. The Decline of the West (2021, in German 1918, 1922);

Therborn. Science, Class & Society (1976);

Tilly. The Vendée (1964);

     -     The Rebellious Century: 1830–1930 (1975);

     -     From Mobilization to Revolution (1978);

     -     The Contentious French (1986);

     -     European Revolutions: 1492–1992 (1993);

Tocqueville. The Old Regime and the French Revolution (2014, in French 1856); 

Trimberger, Ellen Kay. Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and Peru (1978);

Trotsky, L. The Russian Revolution: The Overthrow of Tzarism and the Triumph of the Soviets (1930);

Urry, John. Reference Groups and the Theory of Revolution (1973);

Walton, J. Reluctant Rebels: Comparative Studies of Revolution and Underdevelopment (1984);

Wickham-Crowley, T. P. Guerrillas and Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes Since 1956 (1992);

Wolf. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (1969).