> The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot.
If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city and they were even less popular outside it.
A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée.
The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.
You basically count the one victorious group and ignore all the others.
Russian civil war involved 5 armies. It involved mobs attacking local leaders who fled - they were not necessary related to eventual winners.
French revolution was massively complex event too. Probably even more complex then Russian one.
And in each of these events there were more then one side commuting violence - and there were many people having or voicing opinions about what should happen. That they lost does not mean they don't exist.
I’m not ignoring the other groups, they’re irrelevant to my point, that the bottom doesn’t matter politically. All five groups were well educated, rich and cosmopolitan compared to the average Russian during the civil war.
That the French and Russian revolutions were complex doesn’t mean that the competitors for political power were ever in any way representative of the population. They weren’t. They were members of the elite or had been educated to a level that they aspired to that.
They weren’t on the bottom. The people on the bottom do not successfully engage in politics except as the tools of the current elite or of a counter-elite that aims to take over from the current elite.
Average Russian could not write and read. So of course average Russian could not organize anything as leader, writing and reading are necessary. So if you define elite in a way that includes everyone able to read, then it is starting to loose meaning. Plus rich cosmopolitan is not actually correct description.
And regardless of these, average Russians had own gripes and opinions on what is fair and what they want. The periodic explosions of violence, the demonstrations and very real possibility of massacre (and refusal to perform it) and revolutionary attempts all played role in eventual loss of controll of the country, but more importantly do not show average Russian as never complaining opinionless person.
But also, popular sentiment did played massive role in French revolution, the way it started and evolved. You can't write if off from history.
Regardless of who wins power in the end, it is just not true that lower class people don't have opinions and complains. You choosing to ignore them is your choice.
Just like popular sentiment in Syria played massive role in the way war started and evolved - despite endgame being eventually won by Russian support. You can't write those people's actions out of history.
I have tried to make this point often but people absolutely hate it and don't want to listen.
Yes, there is a lot of local action, lots of mobs and mobs going after whatever.
But the political outcome is often not determined by those action.
I would however ague that those who can get the mob to act for them can get an advantage. Controlling the population and the mob matters quite a bit, just not as much as people who love the glorified revolution from the bottom like to think.
There is massive difference between "powerful people shape ends more" and "the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics".
The former is about low chance of massive success and low likelyhood of gaining chance. The latter is attempting to frame everyone who complains about inequality as unauthentic and attempt to pretend that lower class people don't complain.
If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city and they were even less popular outside it.
A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée.
The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.