# data[].attributes.body
Try not to repeat topics.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is a clear example of "revolution"?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is a clear example of "revolution"?

# data[].attributes.body
A clear example of "revolution"

# data[].attributes.headline
What do you think of when you think of "REVOLUTION"?

# data[].attributes.subject
What do you think of when you think of "REVOLUTION"?

# data[].attributes.body
When you hear the word "REVOLUTION," what do you think or feel?

# data[].attributes.headline
Where does the word "revolution" come from and how has its meaning changed over time?  

# data[].attributes.subject
Where does the word "revolution" come from and how has its meaning changed over time?  

# data[].attributes.body
Use this website: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
late 14c., revolucioun, originally of celestial bodies, "one (apparent) rotation about the earth," also the time required for this, also "act or fact of moving in a circular course," from Old French revolucion "course, revolution" of celestial bodies (13c.) or directly from Late Latin revolutionem (nominative revolutio) "a revolving," noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin revolvere "turn, roll back" (see revolve).

From early 15c. as "a cyclical reoccurrence, a round or recurrent changes or events;" also "the revolving of a wheel." By 1660s as "action on the part of an object or person of turning round or moving round a point."

The sense of "an instance of great change in affairs" is recorded from mid-15c. The political meaning "overthrow of an established political or social system" is recorded by c. 1600, derived from French, and was especially applied in England to the expulsion of the Stuart dynasty under James II in 1688 and transfer of sovereignty to William and Mary under a purer constitutional government. Green revolution in global food production is attested from 1970.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
revolution | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are some steps, parts or categories of "revolution"?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are some steps, parts or categories of "revolution"?

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is understanding "revolution" is important?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is understanding "revolution" is important?

# data[].attributes.body
Quote expert definitions. Put the link to the source. Do not repeat definitions.

# data[].attributes.headline
How does "revolution" connect, compare, or relate to other concepts?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does "revolution" connect, compare, or relate to other concepts?

# data[].attributes.headline
How does a historian study "revolution"?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does a historian study "revolution"?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revolutions are an instrument of change and often an attempt to promote equality and combat oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
Other examples of revolution are:
- the British Agricultural Revolution (1600s-1800s)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution

- the Digital Revolution (1960s-2000s)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Digital Revolution, also known as the Third Industrial Revolution, is the shift from mechanical and analogue electronic technology to digital electronics which began anywhere from the late 1950s to the late 1970s with the adoption and proliferation of digital computers and digital record keeping that continues to the present day.

# data[].attributes.headline
an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

# data[].attributes.subject
an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
tiana

# data[].attributes.body
Revolutions are an instrument of change and often an attempt to promote equality and combat oppression.

# data[].attributes.headline
use it to show that what you are saying is true or to make your meaning clearer

# data[].attributes.subject
use it to show that what you are saying is true or to make your meaning clearer

# data[].attributes.body
tiana

# data[].attributes.body
In the fields of history and political science, a revolution is a radical change in the established order, usually the established government and social institutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revolutions are an instrument of change and often an attempt to promote equality and combat oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

"a financial expert"

# data[].attributes.body
Revolutions are an instrument of change and often an attempt to promote equality and combat oppression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revolutions are an instrument of change and often an attempt to promote equality and combat oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
A movement of a group or entire peoples against a leader or a government

# data[].attributes.body
The significance value, or p value, is the probability that a result occurred by chance.

# data[].attributes.body
In the fields of history and political science, a revolution is a radical change in the established order, usually the established government and social institutions.May 19, 2022

Revolution - National Geographic Society
https://www.nationalgeographic.org › encyclopedia › re...

# data[].attributes.body
It is a fundamental social change in the structure of power or organization that takes place over a relatively short or long period depending on the structure of the organization.

# data[].attributes.body
a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

# data[].attributes.body
When I hear revolution, I think about
political revolution government political power and another things

# data[].attributes.body
It doesn’t seem all that long since the United States was considering how advancements in military technology would allow it to use advances in long-range precision weapons, intelligence sensors, and command and control capabilities to dominate conventional wars. The Gulf War in 1991, the fighting over Kosovo, the initial invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple a Saddam Hussein all seemed to prove that superior technology and tactics had led to a “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA) that would dominate modern warfare.

# data[].attributes.body
an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
The Russian Revolution was a period of political and social revolution that took place in the former Russian Empire, begun during the First World War. This period saw Russia abolish its monarchy and adopt a socialist form of government following two successive revolutions and a bloody civil war. The Russian Revolution can also be seen as the precursor for the other European revolutions that occurred during or in the aftermath of WWI, such as the German Revolution of 1918.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Russian Revolution was a period of political and social change in the Russian Empire, starting in 1917. This period saw Russia abolish its monarchy and adopt a socialist form of government following two successive revolutions and a bloody civil war. The Russian Revolution can also be seen as the precursor for the other European revolutions that occurred during or in the aftermath of World War I, such as the German Revolution of 1918-1919.

The Russian Revolution was inaugurated with the February Revolution in early 1917. With major defeats on the front and increasing logistical problems that affected both the front and the rear, shortages of bread and grain, the Russian Army was steadily losing morale and signs of a potential, large scale mutiny were present. High ranking officials were convinced that if Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, the unrest would subside. Nicholas agreed and stepped down, ushering in a new provisional government led by the Russian Duma.

During the civil unrest Soviets were formed by the locals in Petrograd that initially did not oppose the new Provisional Government; however, the Soviets did insist on a prerogative in order to influence the government and to control various militias. By March, Russia was locked in a dual power. The Provisional Government held state power in areas such as military and international affairs, whereas the network of Soviets held more power concerning domestic affairs. Critically, the Soviets held the allegiance of the working class, as well as the growing urban middle class.

During this chaotic period, there were frequent mutinies, protests and strikes. Many socialist and other leftist political organizations were engaged in daily struggle and vied for influence within the Provisional Government and the Soviets. Notable factions include the Social-Democrats or Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries, Anarchists and the Bolsheviks, a far-left party led by Vladimir Lenin.

Initially the Bolsheviks were a marginalized faction; however, that changed following a series of developments including the use of their slogan, peace, land, and bread which promised to cease war with Germany, give land to the peasantry, and end the famine caused by Russia's involvement in WWI. These slogans had a direct effect on the growing Bolshevik popularity. Despite the virtual universal disdain towards the war effort, the Provisional Government chose to continue fighting anyway, giving the Bolsheviks and other socialist factions a justification to advance the revolution further. The Bolsheviks merged various workers' militias loyal to them into Red Guards, which would be capable of revolution.

The volatile situation in Russia reached its climax with the October Revolution, which was a Bolshevik armed insurrection by workers and soldiers in Petrograd that successfully overthrew the Provisional Government, transferring all its authority to the Bolsheviks. Vested with state power, the Bolsheviks, within the Soviets established their own government, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). Under pressure from German military offensives, the Bolsheviks soon relocated the national capital to Moscow. The RSFSR began the process of reorganizing the former empire into the world's first socialist state, to practice soviet democracy on a national and international scale. Their promise to end Russia's participation in the First World War was fulfilled when the Bolshevik leaders signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March 1918. To further secure the new state, the Bolsheviks established the Cheka, a secret police that functioned as a revolutionary security service to weed out, execute, or punish those considered to be " enemies of the people" in campaigns called the Red Terror, consciously modeled on those of the French Revolution.

Although the Bolsheviks held large support in urban areas, they had many enemies both foreign and domestic that refused to recognize their government. As a result, Russia erupted into a bloody civil war, which pitted the "Reds" (Bolsheviks), against the enemies of the Bolshevik regime collectively referred to as the White Army. The White Army consisted of: independence movements, monarchists, liberals, and anti-Bolshevik socialist parties. In response, Leon Trotsky began ordering workers' militias loyal to the Bolsheviks to begin merging and formed the Red Army. While many notable historical events occurred in Moscow and Petrograd, there were also major changes in cities throughout the state, and among national minorities throughout the empire and in the rural areas, where peasants took over and redistributed land.

As the war progressed, the RSFSR began establishing Soviet power in the newly independent republics that seceded from the Russian Empire. The RSFSR initially focused its efforts on the newly independent republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine. Wartime cohesion and intervention from foreign powers prompted the RSFSR to begin unifying these nations under one flag and created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Historians generally consider the end of the revolutionary period to be in 1923 when the Russian Civil War concluded with the defeat of the White Army and all rival socialist factions, leading to mass emigration from Russia. The victorious Bolshevik Party reconstituted itself into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and would remain in power for the next 68 years.

Background

Soldiers blocking Narva Gate on Bloody Sunday

The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a major factor contributing to the cause of the Revolutions of 1917. The events of Bloody Sunday triggered nationwide protests and soldier mutinies. A council of workers called the St. Petersburg Soviet was created in this chaos. While the 1905 Revolution was ultimately crushed, and the leaders of the St. Petersburg Soviet were arrested, this laid the groundwork for the later Petrograd Soviet and other revolutionary movements during the leadup to 1917. The 1905 Revolution also led to the creation of a Duma (parliament) that would later form the Provisional Government following February 1917.

Russia's poor performance in 1914-1915 prompted growing complaints directed at Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanov family. A short wave of patriotic nationalism ended in the face of defeats and poor conditions on the Eastern Front of World War I. The Tsar made the situation worse by taking personal control of the Imperial Russian Army in 1915, a challenge far beyond his skills. He was now held personally responsible for Russia's continuing defeats and losses. In addition, Tsarina Alexandra, left to rule in while the Tsar commanded at the front, was German born, leading to suspicion of collusion, only to be exacerbated by rumors relating to her relationship with the controversial mystic Grigori Rasputin. Rasputin's influence led to disastrous ministerial appointments and corruption, resulting in a worsening of conditions within Russia.

The conditions during the war resulted in a devastating loss of morale within the Russian army and the general population of Russia itself. This was particularly apparent in the cities, owing to a lack of food in response to the disruption of agriculture. Food scarcity had become a considerable problem in Russia, but the cause of this did not lie in any failure of the harvests, which had not been significantly altered during wartime. The indirect reason was that the government, in order to finance the war, printed millions of rouble notes, and by 1917, inflation had made prices increase up to four times what they had been in 1914. Farmers were consequently faced with a higher cost of living, but with little increase in income. As a result, they tended to hoard their grain and to revert to subsistence farming. Thus the cities were constantly short of food. At the same time, rising prices led to demands for higher wages in the factories, and in January and February 1916, revolutionary propaganda, in part aided by German funds, led to widespread strikes. This resulted in a growing criticism of the government, including an increased participation of workers in revolutionary parties.

All these factors had given rise to a sharp loss of confidence in the regime, even within the ruling class, growing throughout the war. Early in 1916, Guchkov discussed with senior army officers and members of the Central War Industries Committee about a possible coup to force the abdication of the Tsar. In December, a small group of nobles assassinated Rasputin, and in January 1917 the Tsar's cousin, Grand Duke Nicholas, was asked indirectly by Prince Lvov whether he would be prepared to take over the throne from his nephew, Tsar Nicholas II. None of these incidents were in themselves the immediate cause of the February Revolution, but they do help to explain why the monarchy survived only a few days after it had broken out.

Meanwhile, Socialist Revolutionary leaders in exile, many of them living in Switzerland, had been the glum spectators of the collapse of international socialist solidarity. French and German Social Democrats had voted in favour of their respective governments' war efforts. Georgi Plekhanov in Paris had adopted a violently anti-German stand, while Alexander Parvus supported the German war effort as the best means of ensuring a revolution in Russia. The Mensheviks largely maintained that Russia had the right to defend herself against Germany, although Julius Martov (a prominent Menshevik), now on the left of his group, demanded an end to the war and a settlement on the basis of national self-determination, with no annexations or indemnities.

It was these views of Martov that predominated in a manifesto drawn up by Leon Trotsky (at the time a Menshevik) at a conference in Zimmerwald, attended by 35 Socialist leaders in September 1915. Inevitably Vladimir Lenin, supported by Zinoviev and Radek, strongly contested them. Their attitudes became known as the Zimmerwald Left. Lenin rejected both the defence of Russia and the cry for peace. Since the autumn of 1914, he had insisted that "from the standpoint of the working class and of the labouring masses the lesser evil would be the defeat of the Tsarist Monarchy"; the war must be turned into a civil war of the proletarian soldiers against their own governments, and if a proletarian victory should emerge from this in Russia, then their duty would be to wage a revolutionary war for the liberation of the masses throughout Europe.

Economic and social changes

Provisional Government's volunteer soldiers secure Petrograd's Palace Square with the Austin Armoured Car, summer 1917.

An elementary theory of property, believed by many peasants, was that land should belong to those who work on it. At the same time, peasant life and culture was changing constantly. Change was facilitated by the physical movement of growing numbers of peasant villagers who migrated to and from industrial and urban environments, but also by the introduction of city culture into the village through material goods, the press, and word of mouth.

Workers also had good reasons for discontent: overcrowded housing with often deplorable sanitary conditions, long hours at work (on the eve of the war, a 10-hour workday six days a week was the average and many were working 11-12 hours a day by 1916), constant risk of injury and death from poor safety and sanitary conditions, harsh discipline (not only rules and fines, but foremen's fists), and inadequate wages (made worse after 1914 by steep wartime increases in the cost of living). At the same time, urban industrial life had its benefits, though these could be just as dangerous (in terms of social and political stability) as the hardships. There were many encouragements to expect more from life. Acquiring new skills gave many workers a sense of self-respect and confidence, heightening expectations and desires. Living in cities, workers encountered material goods they had never seen in villages. Most importantly, workers living in cities were exposed to new ideas about the social and political order.

The rapid industrialization of Russia also resulted in urban overcrowding and poor conditions for urban industrial workers (as mentioned above). Between 1890 and 1910, the population of the capital, Saint Petersburg, swelled from 1,033,600 to 1,905,600, with Moscow experiencing similar growth. This created a new 'proletariat' which, due to being crowded together in the cities, was much more likely to protest and go on strike than the peasantry had been in previous times. In one 1904 survey, it was found that an average of 16 people shared each apartment in Saint Petersburg, with six people per room. There was also no running water, and piles of human waste were a threat to the health of the workers. The poor conditions only aggravated the situation, with the number of strikes and incidents of public disorder rapidly increasing in the years shortly before World War I. Because of late industrialization, Russia's workers were highly concentrated. By 1914, 40% of Russian workers were employed in factories of 1,000+ workers (32% in 1901). 42% worked in 100-1,000 worker enterprises, 18% in 1-100 worker businesses (in the US, 1914, the figures were 18, 47 and 35 respectively).

World War I added to the chaos. Conscription across Russia resulted in unwilling citizens being sent off to war. The vast demand for factory production of war supplies and workers resulted in many more labor riots and strikes. Conscription stripped skilled workers from the cities, who had to be replaced with unskilled peasants. When famine began to hit due to the poor railway system, workers abandoned the cities in droves seeking food. Finally, the soldiers themselves, who suffered from a lack of equipment and protection from the elements, began to turn against the Tsar. This was mainly because, as the war progressed, many of the officers who were loyal to the Tsar were killed, being replaced by discontented conscripts from the major cities who had little loyalty to the Tsar.

Political issues

The Petrograd Soviet Assembly meeting in 1917

Many sections of the country had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy and a sense of duty to the country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.

This vision of the Romanov monarchy left him unaware of the state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 Revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.

Despite constant oppression, the desire of the people for democratic participation in government decisions was strong. Since the Age of Enlightenment, Russian intellectuals had promoted Enlightenment ideals such as the dignity of the individual and the rectitude of democratic representation. These ideals were championed most vociferously by Russia's liberals, although populists, Marxists, and anarchists also claimed to support democratic reforms. A growing opposition movement had begun to challenge the Romanov monarchy openly well before the turmoil of World War I.

Dissatisfaction with Russian autocracy culminated in the huge national upheaval that followed the Bloody Sunday massacre of January 1905, in which hundreds of unarmed protesters were shot by the Tsar's troops. Workers responded to the massacre with a crippling general strike, forcing Nicholas to put forth the October Manifesto, which established a democratically elected parliament (the State Duma). Although the Tsar accepted the 1906 Fundamental State Laws one year later, he subsequently dismissed the first two Dumas when they proved uncooperative. Unfulfilled hopes of democracy fueled revolutionary ideas and violent outbursts targeted at the monarchy.

One of the Tsar's principal rationales for risking war in 1914 was his desire to restore the prestige that Russia had lost amid the debacles of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Nicholas also sought to foster a greater sense of national unity with a war against a common and old enemy. The Russian Empire was an agglomeration of diverse ethnicities that had demonstrated significant signs of disunity in the years before the First World War. Nicholas believed in part that the shared peril and tribulation of a foreign war would mitigate the social unrest over the persistent issues of poverty, inequality, and inhumane working conditions. Instead of restoring Russia's political and military standing, World War I led to the slaughter of Russian troops and military defeats that undermined both the monarchy and Russian society to the point of collapse.

The outbreak of war in August 1914 initially served to quiet the prevalent social and political protests, focusing hostilities against a common external enemy, but this patriotic unity did not last long. As the war dragged on inconclusively, war-weariness gradually took its toll. Although many ordinary Russians joined anti-German demonstrations in the first few weeks of the war, hostility toward the Kaiser and the desire to defend their land and their lives did not necessarily translate into enthusiasm for the Tsar or the government.

Russia's first major battle of the war was a disaster; in the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg, over 30,000 Russian troops were killed or wounded and 90,000 captured, while Germany suffered just 12,000 casualties. However, Austro-Hungarian forces allied to Germany were driven back deep into the Galicia region by the end of the year. In the autumn of 1915, Nicholas had taken direct command of the army, personally overseeing Russia's main theatre of war and leaving his ambitious but incapable wife Alexandra in charge of the government. Reports of corruption and incompetence in the Imperial government began to emerge, and the growing influence of Grigori Rasputin in the Imperial family was widely resented.

In 1915, things took a critical turn for the worse when Germany shifted its focus of attack to the Eastern Front. The superior German Army - better led, better trained, and better supplied - was quite effective against the ill-equipped Russian forces, driving the Russians out of Galicia, as well as Russian Poland during the Gorlice-Tarnów Offensive campaign. By the end of October 1916, Russia had lost between 1,600,000 and 1,800,000 soldiers, with an additional 2,000,000 prisoners of war and 1,000,000 missing, all making up a total of nearly 5,000,000 men.

These staggering losses played a definite role in the mutinies and revolts that began to occur. In 1916, reports of fraternizing with the enemy began to circulate. Soldiers went hungry, lacked shoes, munitions, and even weapons. Rampant discontent lowered morale, which was further undermined by a series of military defeats.

Casualty rates were the most vivid sign of this disaster. By the end of 1914, only five months into the war, around 390,000 Russian men had lost their lives and nearly 1,000,000 were injured. Far sooner than expected, inadequately trained recruits were called for active duty, a process repeated throughout the war as staggering losses continued to mount. The officer class also saw remarkable changes, especially within the lower echelons, which were quickly filled with soldiers rising up through the ranks. These men, usually of peasant or working-class backgrounds, were to play a large role in the politicization of the troops in 1917.

The army quickly ran short of rifles and ammunition (as well as uniforms and food), and by mid-1915, men were being sent to the front bearing no arms. It was hoped that they could equip themselves with arms recovered from fallen soldiers, of both sides, on the battlefields. The soldiers did not feel as if they were valuable, rather they felt as if they were expendable.

The war did not only devastate soldiers. By the end of 1915, there were manifold signs that the economy was breaking down under the heightened strain of wartime demand. The main problems were food shortages and rising prices. Inflation dragged incomes down at an alarmingly rapid rate, and shortages made it difficult for an individual to sustain oneself. These shortages were a problem especially in the capital, St. Petersburg, where distance from supplies and poor transportation networks made matters particularly worse. Shops closed early or entirely for lack of bread, sugar, meat, and other provisions, and lines lengthened massively for what remained. Conditions became increasingly difficult to afford food and physically obtain it.

Strikes increased steadily from the middle of 1915, and so did crime, but, for the most part, people suffered and endured, scouring the city for food. Working-class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, and continued to resent the rich.

Government officials responsible for public order worried about how long people's patience would last. A report by the St. Petersburg branch of the security police, the Okhrana, in October 1916, warned bluntly of "the possibility in the near future of riots by the lower classes of the empire enraged by the burdens of daily existence."

Tsar Nicholas was blamed for all of these crises, and what little support he had left began to crumble. As discontent grew, the State Duma issued a warning to Nicholas in November 1916, stating that, inevitably, a terrible disaster would grip the country unless a constitutional form of government was put in place. Nicholas ignored these warnings and Russia's Tsarist regime collapsed a few months later during the February Revolution of 1917. One year later, the Tsar and his entire family were executed.

February Revolution

Soldiers marching in Petrograd, March 1917

At the beginning of February, Petrograd workers began several strikes and demonstrations. On 7 March [ O.S. 22 February], workers at Putilov, Petrograd's largest industrial plant was closed by a strike. The next day, a series of meetings and rallies were held for International Women's Day, which gradually turned into economic and political gatherings. Demonstrations were organised to demand bread, and these were supported by the industrial working force who considered them a reason for continuing the strikes. The women workers marched to nearby factories bringing out over 50,000 workers on strike. By 10 March [ O.S. 25 February], virtually every industrial enterprise in Petrograd had been shut down, together with many commercial and service enterprises. Students, white-collar workers, and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings.

To quell the riots, the Tsar looked to the army. At least 180,000 troops were available in the capital, but most were either untrained or injured. Historian Ian Beckett suggests around 12,000 could be regarded as reliable, but even these proved reluctant to move in on the crowd, since it included so many women. It was for this reason that on 11 March [ O.S. 26 February], when the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioting by force, troops began to revolt. Although few actively joined the rioting, many officers were either shot or went into hiding; the ability of the garrison to hold back the protests was all but nullified, symbols of the Tsarist regime were rapidly torn down around the city, and governmental authority in the capital collapsed - not helped by the fact that Nicholas had prorogued the Duma that morning, leaving it with no legal authority to act. The response of the Duma, urged on by the liberal bloc, was to establish a Temporary Committee to restore law and order; meanwhile, the socialist parties established the Petrograd Soviet to represent workers and soldiers. The remaining loyal units switched allegiance the next day.

The Tsar directed the royal train back towards Petrograd, which was stopped on 14 March [ O.S. 1 March], by a group of revolutionaries at Malaya Vishera. When the Tsar finally arrived at in Pskov, the Army Chief Nikolai Ruzsky, and the Duma deputies Alexander Guchkov and Vasily Shulgin suggested in unison that he abdicate the throne. He did so on 15 March [ O.S. 2 March], on behalf of himself, and then, having taken advice on behalf of his son, the Tsarevich. Nicholas nominated his brother, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, to succeed him. But the Grand Duke realised that he would have little support as ruler, so he declined the crown on 16 March [ O.S. 3 March], stating that he would take it only if that was the consensus of democratic action. Six days later, Nicholas, no longer Tsar and addressed with contempt by the sentries as "Nicholas Romanov", was reunited with his family at the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoye Selo. He was placed under house arrest with his family by the Provisional Government.

The immediate effect of the February Revolution was a widespread atmosphere of elation and excitement in Petrograd. On 16 March [ O.S. 3 March], a provisional government was announced. The center-left was well represented, and the government was initially chaired by a liberal aristocrat, Prince Georgy Yevgenievich Lvov, a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party (KD). The socialists had formed their rival body, the Petrograd Soviet (or workers' council) four days earlier. The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government competed for power over Russia.

The effective power of the Provisional Government was challenged by the authority of an institution that claimed to represent the will of workers and soldiers and could, in fact, mobilize and control these groups during the early months of the revolution - the Petrograd Soviet Council of Workers' Deputies. The model for the Soviets were workers' councils that had been established in scores of Russian cities during the 1905 Revolution. In February 1917, striking workers elected deputies to represent them and socialist activists began organizing a citywide council to unite these deputies with representatives of the socialist parties. On 27 February, socialist Duma deputies, mainly Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, took the lead in organizing a citywide council. The Petrograd Soviet met in the Tauride Palace, room 13, permitted by the Provisional Government.

The leaders of the Petrograd Soviet believed that they represented particular classes of the population, not the whole nation. They also believed Russia was not ready for socialism. They viewed their role as limited to pressuring hesitant " bourgeoisie" to rule and to introduce extensive democratic reforms in Russia (the replacement of the monarchy by a republic, guaranteed civil rights, a democratic police and army, abolition of religious and ethnic discrimination, preparation of elections to a constituent assembly, and so on). They met in the same building as the emerging Provisional Government not to compete with the Duma Committee for state power, but to best exert pressure on the new government, to act, in other words, as a popular democratic lobby.

The relationship between these two major powers was complex from the beginning and would shape the politics of 1917. The representatives of the Provisional Government agreed to "take into account the opinions of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies", though they were also determined to prevent interference which would create an unacceptable situation of dual power. In fact, this was precisely what was being created, though this "dual power" (dvoyevlastiye) was the result less of the actions or attitudes of the leaders of these two institutions than of actions outside their control, especially the ongoing social movement taking place on the streets of Russia's cities, factories, shops, barracks, villages, and in the trenches.

A series of political crises - see the chronology below - in the relationship between population and government and between the Provisional Government and the Soviets (which developed into a nationwide movement with a national leadership). The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets (VTsIK) undermined the authority of the Provisional Government but also of the moderate socialist leaders of the Soviets. Although the Soviet leadership initially refused to participate in the "bourgeois" Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky, a young, popular lawyer and a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRP), agreed to join the new cabinet, and became an increasingly central figure in the government, eventually taking leadership of the Provisional Government. As minister of war and later Prime Minister, Kerensky promoted freedom of speech, released thousands of political prisoners, continued the war effort, even organizing another offensive (which, however, was no more successful than its predecessors). Nevertheless, Kerensky still faced several great challenges, highlighted by the soldiers, urban workers, and peasants, who claimed that they had gained nothing by the revolution:

Other political groups were trying to undermine him.

Heavy military losses were being suffered on the front.

The soldiers were dissatisfied and demoralised and had started to defect. (On arrival back in Russia, these soldiers were either imprisoned or sent straight back into the front.)

There was enormous discontent with Russia's involvement in the war, and many were calling for an end to it.

There were great shortages of food and supplies, which was difficult to remedy because of the wartime economic conditions.

The political group that proved most troublesome for Kerensky, and would eventually overthrow him, was the Bolshevik Party, led by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin had been living in exile in neutral Switzerland and, due to democratization of politics after the February Revolution, which legalized formerly banned political parties, he perceived the opportunity for his Marxist revolution. Although return to Russia had become a possibility, the war made it logistically difficult. Eventually, German officials arranged for Lenin to pass through their territory, hoping that his activities would weaken Russia or even - if the Bolsheviks came to power - lead to Russia's withdrawal from the war. Lenin and his associates, however, had to agree to travel to Russia in a sealed train: Germany would not take the chance that he would foment revolution in Germany. After passing through the front, he arrived in Petrograd in April 1917.

On the way to Russia, Lenin prepared the April Theses, which outlined central Bolshevik policies. These included that the Soviets take power (as seen in the slogan "all power to the Soviets") and denouncing the liberals and social revolutionaries in the Provisional Government, forbidding co-operation with it. Many Bolsheviks, however, had supported the Provisional Government, including Lev Kamenev.

With Lenin's arrival, the popularity of the Bolsheviks increased steadily. Over the course of the spring, public dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government and the war, in particular among workers, soldiers and peasants, pushed these groups to radical parties. Despite growing support for the Bolsheviks, buoyed by maxims that called most famously for "all power to the Soviets", the party held very little real power in the moderate-dominated Petrograd Soviet. In fact, historians such as Sheila Fitzpatrick have asserted that Lenin's exhortations for the Soviet Council to take power were intended to arouse indignation both with the Provisional Government, whose policies were viewed as conservative, and the Soviets themselves, which were viewed as subservients to the conservative government. By some other historians' accounts, Lenin and his followers were unprepared for how their groundswell of support, especially among influential worker and soldier groups, would translate into real power in the summer of 1917.

On 18 June, the Provisional Government launched an attack against Germany that failed miserably. Soon after, the government ordered soldiers to go to the front, reneging on a promise. The soldiers refused to follow the new orders. The arrival of radical Kronstadt sailors - who had tried and executed many officers, including one admiral - further fueled the growing revolutionary atmosphere. Sailors and soldiers, along with Petrograd workers, took to the streets in violent protest, calling for "all power to the Soviets". The revolt, however, was disowned by Lenin and the Bolshevik leaders and dissipated within a few days. In the aftermath, Lenin fled to Finland under threat of arrest while Trotsky, among other prominent Bolsheviks, was arrested. The July Days confirmed the popularity of the anti-war, radical Bolsheviks, but their unpreparedness at the moment of revolt was an embarrassing gaffe that lost them support among their main constituent groups: soldiers and workers.

The Bolshevik failure in the July Days proved temporary. The Bolsheviks had undergone a spectacular growth in membership. Whereas, in February 1917, the Bolsheviks were limited to only 24,000 members, by September 1917 there were 200,000 members of the Bolshevik faction. Previously, the Bolsheviks had been in the minority in the two leading cities of Russia-St. Petersburg and Moscow behind the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries, by September the Bolsheviks were in the majority in both cities. Furthermore, the Bolshevik-controlled Moscow Regional Bureau of the Party also controlled the Party organizations of the 13 provinces around Moscow. These 13 provinces held 37% of Russia's population and 20% of the membership of the Bolshevik faction.

In August, poor and misleading communication led General Lavr Kornilov, the recently appointed Supreme Commander of Russian military forces, to believe that the Petrograd government had already been captured by radicals, or was in serious danger thereof.[dubious ] In response, he ordered troops to Petrograd to pacify the city. To secure his position, Kerensky had to ask for Bolshevik assistance. He also sought help from the Petrograd Soviet, which called upon armed Red Guards to "defend the revolution". The Kornilov Affair failed largely due to the efforts of the Bolsheviks, whose influence over railroad and telegraph workers proved vital in stopping the movement of troops. With his coup failing, Kornilov surrendered and was relieved of his position. The Bolsheviks' role in stopping the attempted coup further strengthened their position.

In early September, the Petrograd Soviet freed all jailed Bolsheviks and Trotsky became chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Growing numbers of socialists and lower-class Russians viewed the government less as a force in support of their needs and interests. The Bolsheviks benefited as the only major organized opposition party that had refused to compromise with the Provisional Government, and they benefited from growing frustration and even disgust with other parties, such as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, who stubbornly refused to break with the idea of national unity across all classes.

A revolutionary meeting of Russian soldiers in March 1917 in Dalkarby of Jomala, Åland

In Finland, Lenin had worked on his book State and Revolution and continued to lead his party, writing newspaper articles and policy decrees. By October, he returned to Petrograd (present-day St. Petersburg), aware that the increasingly radical city presented him no legal danger and a second opportunity for revolution. Recognising the strength of the Bolsheviks, Lenin began pressing for the immediate overthrow of the Kerensky government by the Bolsheviks. Lenin was of the opinion that taking power should occur in both St. Petersburg and Moscow simultaneously, parenthetically stating that it made no difference which city rose up first. The Bolshevik Central Committee drafted a resolution, calling for the dissolution of the Provisional Government in favor of the Petrograd Soviet. The resolution was passed 10-2 ( Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev prominently dissenting) promoting the October Revolution.

October Revolution

The October Revolution, which unfolded on Wednesday 7 November 1917 according to the Gregorian calendar and on Wednesday 25 October according to the Julian calendar in use under tsarist Russia, was organized by the Bolshevik party. Lenin did not have any direct role in the revolution and due to his personal safety he was hiding.[citation needed ] The Revolutionary Military Committee established by the Bolshevik party was organizing the insurrection and Leon Trotsky was the chairman. However, Lenin played a crucial role in the debate in the leadership of the Bolshevik party for a revolutionary insurrection as the party in the autumn of 1917 received a majority in the soviets. An ally in the left fraction of the Revolutionary-Socialist Party, with huge support among the peasants who opposed Russia's participation in the war, supported the slogan 'All power to the Soviets'.

Liberal and monarchist forces, loosely organized into the White Army, immediately went to war against the Bolsheviks' Red Army, in a series of battles that would become known as the Russian Civil War. This did not happen in 1917. The Civil War began in early 1918 with domestic anti-Bolshevik forces confronting the nascent Red Army. In autumn of 1918 Allied countries needed to block German access to Russian supplies. They sent troops to support the "Whites" with supplies of weapons, ammunition and logistic equipment being sent from the main Western countries but this was not at all coordinated. Germany did not participate in the civil war as it surrendered to the Allied.

The provisional government with its second and third coalition was led by a right wing fraction of the Socialist-Revolutionary party, SR. This non-elected provisional government faced the revolutionary situation and the growing mood against the war by avoiding elections to the state Duma. However, the October revolution forced the political parties behind the newly dissolved provisional government to move and move fast for immediate elections. All happened so fast that the left SR fraction did not have time to reach out and be represented in ballots of the SR party which was part of the coalition in the provisional government. This non-elected government supported continuation of the war on the side of the allied forces. The elections to the State Duma 25 November 1917 therefore did not mirror the true political situation among peasants even if we don't know how the outcome would be if the anti-war left SR fraction had a fair chance to challenge the party leaders. In the elections the Bolshevik party received 25% of the votes and the Socialist-Revolutionaries as much as 58%. It is possible the left SR had a good chance to reach more than 25% of the votes and thereby legitimate the October revolution but we can only guess.

Lenin did not believe that a socialist revolution necessarily presupposed a fully developed capitalist economy. A semi-capitalist country would suffice and Russia had a working class base of 5% of the population.

Though Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, it has been argued that since Lenin was not present during the actual takeover of the Winter Palace, it was really Trotsky's organization and direction that led the revolution, merely spurred by the motivation Lenin instigated within his party. Critics on the Right have long argued that the financial and logistical assistance of German intelligence via their key agent, Alexander Parvus was a key component as well, though historians are divided, since there is little evidence supporting that claim.

The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly on 6 January 1918. The Tauride Palace is locked and guarded by Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev and Lashevich.

Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, anarchists, and other leftists created opposition to the Bolsheviks through the Soviets themselves. The elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly took place 25 November 1917. The Bolsheviks gained 25% of the vote. When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the Soviets. The Bolsheviks dissolved the Constituent Assembly in January 1918.

Russian Civil War

The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after the October Revolution, resulted in the deaths and suffering of millions of people regardless of their political orientation. The war was fought mainly between the Red Army ("Reds"), consisting of the uprising majority led by the Bolshevik minority, and the "Whites" - army officers and cossacks, the "bourgeoisie", and political groups ranging from the far Right, to the Socialist Revolutionaries who opposed the drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks following the collapse of the Provisional Government, to the Soviets (under clear Bolshevik dominance). The Whites had backing from other countries such as the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and Japan, while the Reds possessed internal support, proving to be much more effective. Though the Allied nations, using external interference, provided substantial military aid to the loosely knit anti-Bolshevik forces, they were ultimately defeated.

The Bolsheviks firstly assumed power in Petrograd, expanding their rule outwards. They eventually reached the Easterly Siberian Russian coast in Vladivostok, four years after the war began, an occupation that is believed to have ended all significant military campaigns in the nation. Less than one year later, the last area controlled by the White Army, the Ayano-Maysky District, directly to the north of the Krai containing Vladivostok, was given up when General Anatoly Pepelyayev capitulated in 1923.

Several revolts were initiated against the Bolsheviks and their army near the end of the war, notably the Kronstadt Rebellion. This was a naval mutiny engineered by Soviet Baltic sailors, former Red Army soldiers, and the people of Kronstadt. This armed uprising was fought against the antagonizing Bolshevik economic policies that farmers were subjected to, including seizures of grain crops by the Communists. This all amounted to large-scale discontent. When delegates representing the Kronstadt sailors arrived at Petrograd for negotiations, they raised 15 demands primarily pertaining to the Russian right to freedom. The Government firmly denounced the rebellions and labelled the requests as a reminder of the Social Revolutionaries, a political party that was popular among Soviets before Lenin, but refused to cooperate with the Bolshevik Army. The Government then responded with an armed suppression of these revolts and suffered ten thousand casualties before entering the city of Kronstadt. This ended the rebellions fairly quickly, causing many of the rebels to flee seeking political exile.

During the Civil War, Nestor Makhno led a Ukrainian anarchist movement. Makhno's Insurgent Army allied to the Bolsheviks thrice, with one of the powers ending the alliance each time. However, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze destroyed the Makhnovshchina, when the Makhnovists refused to merge into the Red Army. In addition, the so-called " Green Army" (peasants defending their property against the opposing forces) played a secondary role in the war, mainly in Ukraine.

Revolutionary tribunals

Revolutionary tribunals were present during both the Revolution and the Civil War, intended for the purpose of combatting forces of counter-revolution. At the Civil War's zenith, it is reported that upwards of 200,000 cases were investigated by approximately 200 tribunals. These tribunals established themselves more so from the Cheka as a more moderate force that acted under the banner of revolutionary justice, rather than a utilizer of strict brute force as the former did. However, these tribunals did come with their own set of inefficiencies, such as responding to cases in a matter of months and not having a concrete definition of " counter-revolution" that was determined on a case-by-case basis. The "Decree on Revolutionary Tribunals" used by the People's Commissar of Justice, states in article 2 that "In fixing the penalty, the Revolutionary Tribunal shall be guided by the circumstances of the case and the dictates of the revolutionary conscience." Revolutionary tribunals ultimately demonstrated that a form of justice was still prevalent in Russian society where the Russian Provisional Government failed. This, in part, triggered the political transition of the October Revolution and the Civil War that followed in its aftermath.

Murder of the imperial family

Murder of the Romanov family, Le Petit Journal

The Bolsheviks executed the Tsar and his family on 16 July 1918. In early March, the Provisional Government had placed Nicholas and his family under house arrest in the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoye Selo, 24 kilometres (15 mi) south of Petrograd. But in August 1917, they evacuated the Romanovs to Tobolsk in the Urals to protect them from the rising tide of revolution. After the Bolsheviks came to power in October 1917, the conditions of their imprisonment grew stricter and talk of putting Nicholas on trial increased. In April and May 1918, the looming civil war led the Bolsheviks to move the family to the stronghold of Yekaterinburg.

During the early morning of 16 July, Nicholas, Alexandra, their children, their physician, and several servants were taken into the basement and shot. According to Edvard Radzinsky and Dmitrii Volkogonov, the order came directly from Lenin and Yakov Sverdlov in Moscow. However, this claim has never been confirmed. The execution may have been carried out on the initiative of local Bolshevik officials, or it may have been an option pre-approved in Moscow as White troops were rapidly approaching Yekaterinburg. Radzinsky noted that Lenin's bodyguard personally delivered the telegram ordering the execution and that he was ordered to destroy the evidence.

Soviet painting Vladimir Lenin, by Isaac Brodsky

The Russian Revolution became the site for many instances of symbolism, both physical and non-physical. Communist symbolism is perhaps the most notable of this time period, such as the debut of the iconic hammer and sickle as a representation of the October Revolution in 1917, eventually becoming the official symbol of the USSR in 1924, and later the symbol of Communism as a whole. Although the Bolsheviks did not have extensive political experience, their portrayal of the revolution itself as both a political and symbolic order resulted in Communism's portrayal as a messianic faith, formally known as communist messianism. Portrayals of notable revolutionary figures such as Lenin were done in iconographic methods, equating them similarly to religious figures, though religion itself was banned in the USSR and groups such as the Russian Orthodox Church were persecuted.

The revolution and the world

The revolution ultimately led to the establishment of the future Soviet Union as an ideocracy; however, the establishment of such a state came as an ideological paradox, as Marx's ideals of how a socialist state ought to be created were based on the formation being natural and not artificially incited (i.e. by means of revolution). Leon Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. A revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923, but despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of 1918-19, the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, and others like it, no other Marxist movement at the time succeeded in keeping power in its hands.

This issue is subject to conflicting views on communist history by various Marxist groups and parties. Joseph Stalin later rejected this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country.

The confusion regarding Stalin's position on the issue stems from the fact that, after Lenin's death in 1924, he successfully used Lenin's argument - the argument that socialism's success needs the support of workers of other countries in order to happen - to defeat his competitors within the party by accusing them of betraying Lenin and, therefore, the ideals of the October Revolution.

Historiography

Few events in historical research have been as conditioned by political influences as the October Revolution. The historiography of the Revolution generally divides into three schools of thought: the Soviet-Marxist view, the Western Totalitarian view, and the Revisionist (Trotskyist) view. Since the fall of Communism (and the USSR) in Russia in 1991, the Western-Totalitarian view has again become dominant and the Soviet-Marxist view has practically vanished in mainstream political analysis.

Following the death of Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik government was thrown into a crisis. Lenin failed to designate who his successor would be or how they would be chosen. A power struggle broke out in the party between Leon Trotsky and his enemies. Trotsky was defeated by the anti-Trotsky bloc by the mid 1920s and his hopes for party leadership was dashed. Among Trotsky's opponents, Joseph Stalin would rise to assume unchallenged party leadership by 1928. In 1927 Trotsky was expelled from the party and in 1929 he lost his citizenship and was sent into exile. While in exile he began honing his own interpretation of Marxism called Trotskyism. The schism between Trotsky and Stalin is the focal point where the Revisionist view comes into existence. Trotsky traveled across the world denouncing Stalin and the Soviet Union under his leadership. He specifically focused his criticism on Stalin's doctrine, Socialism in One Country, claiming that it was incongruent with the ideology of the revolution. Eventually, Trotsky settled in Mexico City and began a base of operations for him and his supporters. In 1937 at the height of the Great Purge, he published The Revolution Betrayed which outlined his ideological contradictions with Stalin, and how Stalin was guilty of subverting and debasing the 1917 revolution. He continued to vocally criticize Stalin and Stalinism until his assassination in 1940 on Stalin's orders.

The Soviet-Marxist interpretation is the belief that the Russian Revolution under the Bolsheviks was a proud and glorious effort of the working class which saw the removal of the Tsar, nobility, and capitalists from positions of power. The Bolsheviks and later the Communist Party took the first steps in liberating the proletariat and building a workers' state that practiced equality. Outside of Eastern Europe this view was heavily criticized as following the death of Lenin the Soviet Union became more authoritarian. Even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, the Soviet-Marxist view is still interpreted in academia today. Both academics and Soviet supporters acknowledge this view is bolstered by several key events. First, the RSFSR made substantial advancements to women's' rights. It was the first country to decriminalize abortion and allowed women to be educated, which was forbidden under the Tsar. Furthermore, the RSFSR decriminalized homosexuality between consenting adults which was seen as radical for the time period. The Bolshevik government also actively recruited working class citizens into positions of party leadership, thereby ensuring the proletariat had a voice in policymaking. One of the most important aspects to this view was the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War. On paper, the Bolsheviks should have been defeated in part due to the broad international support their enemies were receiving. Britain, France, the United States, Japan, and other countries sent aid to the White Army and expedition forces against the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were further at a disadvantage due to factors such as: the small land area under their control, lack of professional officers, and supply shortages. In spite of this, the Red Army prevailed. The Red Army unlike many White factions maintained a high morale among their troops and civilians throughout the duration of the civil war. This was in part due to their skillful use propaganda. Bolshevik propaganda portrayed the Red Army as liberators and stewards of the poor and downtrodden. Bolshevik support was further elevated by Lenin's initiatives to distribute land to the peasantry, and ending the war with Germany. During the civil war, the Bolsheviks were able to raise an army numbering around 5 million active soldiers. Domestic support and patriotism played a decisive role in the Russian Civil War. By 1923 the Bolsheviks had controlled the last of the White Army holdouts and the Russian Civil War concluded with a Bolshevik victory. This victory ultimately influenced how the Soviet Union interpreted its own ideology and the October Revolution itself. Starting in 1919, the Soviets would commemorate the event with a military parade and a public holiday. This tradition lasted up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. As time went on the Soviet-Marxist interpretation evolved with an " anti-Stalinist" version of it. This subsection attempts to draw a distinction between the "Lenin period" (1917-24) and the "Stalin period" (1928-53).

Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin's successor, argued that Stalin's regime differed profusely from the leadership of Lenin in his " Secret Speech", delivered in 1956. He was critical of the cult of the individual which was constructed around Stalin whereas Lenin stressed "the role of the people as the creator of history". He also emphasized that Lenin favored a collective leadership which relied on personal persuasion and recommended the removal of Stalin from the position of General Secretary. Khrushchev contrasted this with the "despotism" of Stalin which require absolute submission to his position and he also highlighted that many of the people who were later annihilated as "enemies of the party", "had worked with Lenin during his life". He also contrasted the "severe methods" used by Lenin in the "most necessary cases" as a "struggle for survival" during the Civil War with the extreme methods and mass repressions used by Stalin even when the Revolution was "already victorious".

Views from the west were mixed. Socialists and labor organizations tended to support the October Revolution and the Bolshevik seizure of power. On the other hand, western governments were mortified. Western leaders, and later some academics concluded that the Russian Revolution only replaced one form of tyranny, (Tsarism) with another (communism). Initially, the Bolsheviks were tolerant of opposing political factions. Upon seizing state power, they organized a parliament, the Russian Constituent Assembly. On November 25, an election was held. Despite the Bolsheviks being the party that overthrew the Provisional Government and organizing the assembly, they lost the election. Rather than govern as a coalition, the Bolsheviks banned all political opposition. Historians point to this as the start of communist authoritarianism. Conservative historian, Robert Service, states, "he (Lenin) aided the foundations of dictatorship and lawlessness. He had consolidated the principle of state penetration of the whole society, its economy and its culture. Lenin had practiced terror and advocated revolutionary amoralism." Lenin allowed for certain disagreement and debate but only within the highest organs of the Bolshevik party, and practicing democratic centralism. The RSFSR and later the Soviet Union continued to practice political repression until its dissolution in 1991.

Trotskyist theoreticians have disputed the view that a one-party state was a natural outgrowth of the Bolshevik's actions. George Novack stressed the initial efforts by the Bolsheviks to form a government with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and bring other parties such as the Mensheviks into political legality. Tony Cliff argued the Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary coalition government dissolved the Constituent Assembly due to a number of reasons. They cited the outdated voter-rolls which did not acknowledge the split among the Socialist Revolutionary party and the assemblies conflict with the Congress of the Soviets as an alternative democratic structure. Trotskyist historian Vadim Rogovin believed Stalinism had "discredited the idea of socialism in the eyes of millions of people throughout the world". Rogovin also argued that the Left Opposition, led by Leon Trotsky, was a political movement "which offered a real alternative to Stalinism, and that to crush this movement was the primary function of the Stalinist terror".

Cultural portrayal

Literature

The White Guard by Mikhail Bulgakov, 1925. Partially autobiographical novel, portraying the life of one family torn apart by uncertainty of the Civil War times

The Life of Klim Samgin (1927-1931) by Maxim Gorky. A novel that portrays the decline of Russian intelligentsia from the start of the 1870s and the assassination of Alexander II to the Revolution

Mikhail Sholokhov's novel Quiet Flows the Don (1928-1940) describes the lives of Don Cossacks during the World War I, the Revolution, and the Civil War

George Orwell's classic novella Animal Farm (1945) is an allegory of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. It describes the dictator Joseph Stalin as a big Berkshire boar named, "Napoleon". Trotsky is represented by a pig called Snowball who is a brilliant talker and makes magnificent speeches. However, Napoleon overthrows Snowball as Stalin overthrew Trotsky and Napoleon takes over the farm the animals live on. Napoleon becomes a tyrant and uses force and propaganda to oppress the animals, while culturally teaching them that they are free

Doctor Zhivago (1957) by Boris Pasternak describes the fate of Russian intelligentsia; the events take place between the Revolution of 1905 and World War II

The Red Wheel (1984-1991) by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. A cycle of novels that describes the fall of the Russian Empire and the establishment of the Soviet Union

The Russian Revolution has been portrayed in or served as backdrop for many films. Among them, in order of release date:

The End of Saint Petersburg. 1927. Directed by Vsevolod Pudovkin and Mikhail Doller, USSR

October: Ten Days That Shook the World. 1927. Directed by Sergei Eisenstein and Grigori Aleksandrov. Soviet Union. Black and White. Silent

Scarlet Dawn, a 1932 Pre-Code American romantic drama starring Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Nancy Carroll caught up in the fallout of the Russian Revolution

Knight Without Armour. 1937. A British historical drama starring Marlene Dietrich and Robert Donat, with Dietrich as an imperiled aristocrat on the eve of the Russian Revolution

Lenin in 1918. 1939. Directed by Mikhail Romm, E. Aron, and I. Simkov. Historical-revolutionary film about Lenin's activities in the first years of Soviet power

Doctor Zhivago. 1965. A drama-romance-war film directed by David Lean, filmed in Europe with a largely European cast, loosely based on the famous novel of the same name by Boris Pasternak

. 1981. Directed by Warren Beatty, it is based on the book Ten Days that Shook the World

. 1997. An American animated feature, directed by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman

References

Further reading

Acton, Edward, Vladimir Cherniaev, and William G. Rosenberg, eds. A Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921 (Bloomington, 1997).

Ascher, Abraham. The Russian Revolution: A Beginner's Guide (Oneworld Publications, 2014)

Brenton, Tony. Was Revolution Inevitable?: Turning Points of the Russian Revolution (Oxford UP, 2017).

Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2-3, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-81529-0 (vol. 2) ISBN 0-521-81144-9 (vol. 3).

Chamberlin, William Henry. The Russian Revolution, Volume I: 1917-1918: From the Overthrow of the Tsar to the Assumption of Power by the Bolsheviks; The Russian Revolution, Volume II: 1918-1921: From the Civil War to the Consolidation of Power (1935), famous classic online

Daly, Jonathan and Leonid Trofimov, eds. "Russia in War and Revolution, 1914-1922: A Documentary History." (Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009). ISBN 978-0-87220-987-9.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. 199 pages. Oxford University Press; (2nd ed. 2001). ISBN 0-19-280204-6.

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. The February Revolution, Petrograd, 1917: The End of the Tsarist Regime and the Birth of Dual Power (Brill, 2017).

Lincoln, W. Bruce. Passage Through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914-1918. (New York, 1986).

Marples, David R. Lenin's Revolution: Russia, 1917-1921 (Routledge, 2014).

Mawdsley, Evan. Russian Civil War (2007). 400p.

Palat, Madhavan K., Social Identities in Revolutionary Russia, ed. (Macmillan, Palgrave, UK, and St Martin's Press, New York, 2001).

Piper, Jessica. Events That Changed the Course of History: The Story of the Russian Revolution 100 Years Later (Atlantic Publishing Company, 2017).\

Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution (New York, 1990) online

Pipes, Richard. A concise history of the Russian Revolution (1995) online

Rabinowitch, Alexander. The Bolsheviks in power: the first year of Soviet rule in Petrograd (Indiana UP, 2008). online; also audio version

Rappaport, Helen. Caught in the Revolution: Petrograd, Russia, 1917-A World on the Edge (Macmillan, 2017).

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. and Mark D. Steinberg A History of Russia (7th ed.) (Oxford University Press 2005).

Rubenstein, Joshua. (2013) Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary's Life (2013) excerpt

Service, Robert (2005). Stalin: A Biography. Cambridge: Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-01697-1 online

Service, Robert. Lenin: A Biography (2000); one vol edition of his three volume scholarly biography online

Service, Robert (2005). A history of modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01801-3.

Harold Shukman, ed. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution (1998) articles by over 40 specialists online

Smele, Jonathan. The 'Russian' Civil Wars, 1916-1926: Ten Years That Shook the World (Oxford UP, 2016).

Steinberg, Mark. The Russian Revolution, 1905-1921 (Oxford UP, 2017). audio version

Stoff, Laurie S. They Fought for the Motherland: Russia's Women Soldiers in World War I & the Revolution (2006) 294pp

Swain, Geoffrey. Trotsky and the Russian Revolution (Routledge, 2014)

White, James D. Lenin: The Practice & Theory of Revolution (2001) 262pp

Wolfe, Bertram D. (1948) Three Who Made a Revolution: A Biographical History of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin (1948) online free to borrow

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm (1959). Road to Revolution: A Century of Russian Radicalism. Macmillan Company.

Historiography

Gatrell, Peter. "Tsarist Russia at War: The View from Above, 1914-February 1917" Journal of Modern History 87#4 (2015) 668-700 online

Haynes, Mike and Jim Wolfreys, (eds). History and Revolution: Refuting Revisionism. Verso Books, 2007. ISBN 978-1844671502

Lyandres, Semion, and Andrei Borisovich Nikolaev. "Contemporary Russian Scholarship on the February Revolution in Petrograd: Some Centenary Observations." Revolutionary Russia 30.2 (2017): 158-181.

Smith, S. A. "The historiography of the Russian revolution 100 years on." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 16.4 (2015): 733-749.

Smith, Steve. "Writing the History of the Russian Revolution after the Fall of Communism." Europe‐Asia Studies 46.4 (1994): 563-578.

Suny, Ronald Grigor, ed. Red Flag Unfurled: History, Historians, and the Russian Revolution (New York: Verso, 2017) excerpt

Tereshchuk, Andrei V. "The Last Autocrat Reassessing Nicholas II" Russian Studies in History 50#4 (2012) pp. 3-6. DOI 10.2753/RSH1061-1983500400

Volkogonov, Dmitri (1994). Lenin: A New Biography. Translated by Shukman, Harold. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-255123-6.

Wade, Rex A. "The Revolution at One Hundred: Issues and Trends in the English Language Historiography of the Russian Revolution of 1917." Journal of Modern Russian History and Historiography 9.1 (2016): 9-38.

Warth, Robert D. "On the Historiography of the Russian Revolution." Slavic Review 26.2 (1967): 247-264.

Participants' accounts

Reed, John. Ten Days that Shook the World. 1919, 1st Edition, published by BONI & Liveright, Inc. for International Publishers. Transcribed and marked by David Walters for John Reed Internet Archive. Penguin Books; 1st edition. 1 June 1980. ISBN 0-14-018293-4. Retrieved 14 May 2005.

Serge, Victor. Year One of the Russian Revolution. L'An l de la revolution russe, 1930. Year One of the Russian Revolution, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Translation, editor's Introduction, and notes © 1972 by Peter Sedgwick. Reprinted on Victor Serge Internet Archive by permission. ISBN 0-86316-150-2. Retrieved 14 May 2005.

Steinberg, Mark, Voices of Revolution, 1917. Yale University Press, 2001

Trotsky, Leon. The History of the Russian Revolution. Translated by Max Eastman, 1932. ISBN 0-913460-83-4.

Primary sources

Ascher, Abraham, ed. The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution (Ithaca, 1976).

Browder, Robert Paul and Alexander F. Kerensky, eds., The Russian Provisional Government, 1917: Documents. 3 volumes (Stanford, 1961).

Bunyan, James and H. H. Fisher, eds. The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1918: Documents and Materials (Stanford, 1961; first ed. 1934).

Daly, Jonathan and Leonid Trofimov, eds. "Russia in War and Revolution, 1914-1922: A Documentary History." (Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009). ISBN 978-0-87220-987-9. Includes private letters, press editorials, government decrees, diaries, philosophical tracts, belles-lettres, and memoirs; 416pp.

Golder, Frank Alfred. Documents Of Russian History 1914-1917 (1927), 680pp online

Miller, Martin A., ed. Russian Revolution: The Essential Readings (2001) 304pp

Steinberg, Mark D. Voices of Revolution, 1917. In the series "Annals of Communism", Yale University Press, 2001. 404pp On-line publication of these texts in the Russian original: Golosa revoliutsii, 1917 g. (Yale University Press, 2002)

Zeman, Z. A. B. ed. Germany and the Revolution in Russia, 1915-1918: Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry (1958)

External links

Read, Christopher: Revolutions (Russian Empire), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Brudek, Paweł: Revolutions (East Central Europe), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Sumpf, Alexandre: Russian Civil War, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Mawdsley, Evan: International Responses to the Russian Civil War (Russian Empire), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Melancon, Michael S.: Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Russian Empire), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Sanborn, Joshua A.: Russian Empire, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Gaida, Fedor Aleksandrovich: Governments, Parliaments and Parties (Russian Empire), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Albert, Gleb: Labour Movements, Trade Unions and Strikes (Russian Empire), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Gatrell, Peter: Organization of War Economies (Russian Empire), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Marks, Steven G.: War Finance (Russian Empire), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

Orlando Figes's free educational website on the Russian Revolution and Soviet history, May 2014

Soviet history archive at www.marxists.org

Archival footage of the Russian Revolution // Net-Film Newsreels and Documentary Films Archive

Précis of Russian Revolution A summary of the key events and factors of the 1917 Russian Revolution.

Kevin Murphy's Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial Prize lecture Can we Write the History of the Russian Revolution, which examines historical accounts of 1917 in the light of newly accessible archive material.

Thanks to Trotsky, the 'insurrection' was bloodless

Violence and Revolution in 1917. Mike Haynes for . 17 July 2017.

The Bolsheviks and workers' control: the state and counter-revolution - Maurice Brinton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Russian Revolution was a period of political and social change in the Russian Empire, starting in 1917. This period saw Russia abolish its monarchy and adopt a socialist form of government following two successive revolutions and a bloody civil war.

# data[].attributes.body
I think of a change to improve society

# data[].attributes.body
adjective. If you use something as an illustrative example, or for illustrative purposes, you use it to show that what you are saying is true or to make your meaning clearer.

# data[].attributes.body
Revolutions are an instrument of change and often an attempt to promote equality and combat oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
A list is an ordered data structure with elements separated by a comma and enclosed within square brackets. For example, list1 and list2 shown below contains a

# data[].attributes.body
The chemical revolution, also called the first chemical revolution, was the early modern reformulation of chemistry that culminated in the law of conservation of mass and the oxygen theory of combustion. During the 19th and 20th century, this transformation was credited to the work of the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (the "father of modern chemistry").[2] However, recent work on the history of early modern chemistry considers the chemical revolution to consist of gradual changes in chemical theory and practice that emerged over a period of two centuries.[3][4] The so-called scientific revolution took place during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries whereas the chemical revolution took place during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The chemical revolution, also called the first chemical revolution, was the early modern reformulation of chemistry that culminated in the law of conservation of mass and the oxygen theory of combustion. During the 19th and 20th century, this transformation was credited to the work of the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (the " father of modern chemistry").

# data[].attributes.body
when i hear the word REVOLUTION i think about a group of people who wants to make a big change in their community.

# data[].attributes.body
Although there is no definitive and inclusive definition of revolution, perhaps one incident can be mentioned as the spark pf its seen as the beginning of a clear gap between the ruling political forces and social forces.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
انقلاب (به انگلیسی: Revolution) به معنای زیر و رو شدن یا پشت و رو شدن و تحول است. این واژه در آغاز از اصطلاحات علم اخترشناسی بود و در معنای چرخش دورانی افلاک و بازگشت ستارگان به جای اول به کار می‌رفت. و ابتدا در جامعه‌شناسی به معنای بازگشت به گذشته‌است، گذشته‌ای روشن یا بازگشت آزادیِ ازدَست‌رفته. پس از آن و به‌خصوص از زمان کانت که در انقلاب فرانسه عناصری مانند تعیین سرنوشت و تغییر شرایط زندگی توده‌ها به دست خودشان و غیره، وجود دارد که هرگز تا پیش از آن وجود نداشته، جامعه‌شناسان و فلاسفه انقلاب را این‌گونه بیان می‌نمایند که ذات و ماهیت چیزی لزوماً عوض شده باشد. در نگاه جامعه‌شناسان، هر جنبش اجتماعی توده‌ای که به فرایندهای عمدهٔ اصلاح یا دگرگونی اجتماعی بینجامد، انقلاب است. انقلاب‌های بزرگ به آن دسته از انقلاب‌ها گفته می‌شود که با تغییرات اساسی در حکومت و ساختار اجتماعی یک کشور یا جامعه همراه بوده‌اند. از انقلاب‌های مهم می‌توان به انقلاب فرانسه، انقلاب روسیه و انقلاب اسلامی ایران اشاره کرد.

این واژه در معنای خود دارای ابهام بسیار بوده و از این رو می‌توان آن را یک " تغییر کیفی " دانست که بسته به مورد، یک یا چند صفت از صفات زیر نیز با آن همراه می‌شود.

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ سیاسی رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ سیاسی"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ اجتماعی رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ اجتماعی"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ فرهنگ رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ فرهنگی"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ اقتصاد رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ اقتصادی"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ هنر رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ هنری"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ علم رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ علمی"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ ارتباطات رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ ارتباطات"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ اطلاعات رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ اطلاعات"

تغییر کیفی که در حوزهٔ فناوری رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "در حوزهٔ فناوری"

تغییر کیفی که به‌ناگهان رخ می‌دهد: اضافه نمودن صفت "ناگهانی"

تغییر کیفی که به‌تدریج صورت می‌گیرد: اضافه نمودن صفت "تدریجی"

تغییر کیفی که برای دستیابی به آن از خشونت استفاده شده‌است: اضافه نمودن صفت "خشونت‌آمیز"

تغییر کیفی که برای دستیابی به آن از خشونت استفاده نشده‌است: اضافه نمودن صفت "خشونت‌پرهیز".

تغییر کیفی که در همهٔ حوزه‌ها صورت می‌گیرد. اضافه نمودن صفت "همه‌جانبه"

تغییر کیفی که در یک حوزه صورت می‌گیرد. اضافه نمودن صفت "جزئی"

با ترکیب موارد بالا با یکدیگر، می‌توان توضیحی مناسب و تحلیلی از رخداد مذکور بدست داد[۱]. مثلاً می‌توان گفت:

ایران یک "تغییر کیفی، ناگهانی، خشونت‌پرهیز و جزئی (تنها در حوزهٔ سیاسی)" را در سال ۱۳۵۷ به چشم خود دید.

ایران یک "تغییر کیفی، تدریجی، خشونت‌پرهیز و جزئی (تنها در حوزه‌های اجتماعی و فرهنگی)" را در سال ۱۳۵۷ به چشم خود دید.

ایران یک "تغییر کیفی، تدریجی، خشونت‌آمیز و همه‌جانبه" را در دو سدهٔ اخیر به چشم خود دیده‌است.

از آنجا که انقلاب‌ها در تاریخ جهان طی دو سدهٔ گذشته بسیار مهم بوده‌اند، شگفت‌انگیز نیست که نظریه‌های گوناگونی به منظور کوشش برای تبیین آن‌ها به وجود آمده‌است. برخی از این نظریه‌ها در اوایل عمر علوم اجتماعی تنظیم گردیدند؛ مهم‌ترین رویکرد در این زمینه نظریهٔ کارل مارکس است. مارکس مدت‌ها پیش از هر یک از انقلاب‌هایی که به نام اندیشه‌های او رخ داده زندگی می‌کرد، اما بر آن بود که نظریاتش تنها به‌عنوان تحلیلی از شرایط دگرگونی انقلابی در نظر گرفته نشود، بلکه به‌عنوان وسیله‌ای برای پیشبرد این‌گونه دگرگونی‌ها مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. اندیشه‌های مارکس، صرف نظر از اعتبار حقیقی آنها، تأثیر عملیِ فوق‌العاده زیادی بر دگرگونی‌های اجتماعی سدهٔ بیستم داشته‌اند. نظریه‌های مهم دیگر بسیار دیرتر به وجود آمدند و اندیشمندان کوشش کرده‌اند هم انقلاب‌های اولیه (مانند انقلاب‌های آمریکا یا فرانسه) و هم انقلاب‌های بعدی را تبیین کنند. برخی دامنهٔ تحلیل را حتی گسترده‌تر ساخته و کوشیده‌اند فعالیت انقلابی را در ارتباط با شکل‌های دیگر شورش یا اعتراض تبیین کنند.

مارکس بر "چاره‌ناپذیری" یا ضرورت انقلاب سخت تکیه می‌کرد. وی بر آن بود که انقلاب ناشی از تکامل نیروهای تولیدگر جامعه است و از ناسازگاری آن نیروها با روابط و نظام سیاسی و اجتماعی کنونی، پدید می‌آید. هنگامی که این نظام و روابط جلوی رشد تولید را بگیرند، بحران سخت می‌شود و دورهٔ انقلاب‌های اجتماعی آغاز می‌شود. طبقات زبردست نمی‌خواهند پایگاه خود را از دست بدهند و طبقات زیردست نمی‌خواهند در وضع کنونی بمانند و این برخورد به انقلاب‌های خونین می‌انجامد. مارکس انقلاب را عامل ناگزیر پیشرفت و "لوکوموتیو تاریخ" می‌داند.

نظریه‌های حاصل از مطالعهٔ انقلاب‌ها است. مطالعه و تجزیه‌وتحلیل انقلابات سنت سحرآمیز و پرافتخاری است که فلاسفه، تاریخ‌دانان، دانشمندان علوم اجتماعی، و مفسران اجتماعی برای سده‌ها با لذت از آن تعریف نموده‌اند. حکایت توده‌های در حال قیام همواره برای به هیجان آوردن یا به هراس افکندن کسانی که کارشان بررسی وقایع بزرگ اجتماعی و بیان علت وقوع این‌گونه رخدادهاست کافی بوده‌است و شگفت آن‌که پس از ارسطو که برای نخستین‌بار سرچشمه‌ها و منابع واقعی انقلاب را برای ما تشریح کرد نظریه‌پردازان بعدی سئوالات بیشماری را دربارهٔ ماهیت این‌گونه وقایع مطرح ساخته‌اند که خود توانایی پاسخگویی به همهٔ آنها را نداشته‌اند. مهم‌تر آن‌که نظریه‌پردازانی که پدیدهٔ انقلاب را مورد ملاحظه قرار داده‌اند بر سر ماهیت آن دچار اختلافِ‌نظر می‌باشند و به علاوه هنوز به نتایج عموماً پذیرفته‌شده‌ای دربارهٔ علت وقوع انقلابات دست نیافته‌اند.

نارضایتی عنصر به‌وجودآورندهٔ تغییر است ولی هر نارضایتی نمی‌تواند به انقلاب تبدیل گردد، بلکه این نارضایتی باید به حد ناامیدی از اصلاح در پیکرهٔ سیاسی موجود درآمده باشد تا کم‌کم به عنصر خشم منجر شود. یکی دیگر از شاخصه‌های این نارضایتی، ظهور در طبقه‌ها و قشرها و نخبگان است.

ایدئولوژی به معنی اشتراکات فرهنگی و عقیدتی است که به‌نحوی نمادین بیان می‌گردد، ایدئولوژی به معنای خاصش نوعی انقلاب گفتاری محسوب می‌شود که اهداف جدیدی را پیش روی افراد ناراضی از وضع موجود قرار می‌دهد تا در حول آن‌ها به ارائهٔ نظریات و ایده‌های جدید اقدام شود. برینتون گفته که هیچ انقلابی بدون ظهور ایدئولوژی جدید شکل نمی‌گیرد. این ایدئولوژی اهداف دور از دسترسی را که کمبود حکومت موجود است و حکومت نمی‌تواند آن‌ها را تحقق بخشد، نشانه می‌رود تا هم رضایتی عقلایی از ارضای آن‌ها در آینده برای جذب عامّیون استفاده کند و هم با آرمان‌هایش به ساختارهای نخبگان ساخت بدهد و آن‌ها را در یک جهت هماهنگ کند.

ایدئولوژیِ هر انقلاب در چگونگی روندها و چهارچوب‌ها در حال و آیندهٔ پیروزی یا شکست آن انقلاب نقش بسیار اساسی دارد به‌عبارتی چگونگی پیروزی، حکومت جایگزین، نقش‌های رهبری و دیگر عوامل که با پیروزی یک انقلاب به دنبال آن می‌آیند از ایدئولوژی آن انقلاب برمی‌خیزند و هر چه این ایدئولوژی به آرمان‌های آن جامعه نزدیک‌تر باشد پیروزی نزدیک‌تر و موفق‌تر است.

گسترش روحیهٔ انقلابی آغاز دوران آنارشیستی یک انقلاب است. در این زمان جامعه دیگر به آن قدرت رسیده‌است که برای رسیدن به خواسته‌هایش در پی عمل کردن به آن‌ها باشد. شورش‌ها، انتقادهای مستقیم و خالی از کنایه، تظاهرات‌های ناآرام و... همه و همه از نشانه‌های رسیدن جامعه به این سطح از نارضایتی است. در مرحلهٔ دوم، یعنی بروز ایدئولوژی، هنوز مردم عامی نوعی پشیمانی، برای مقابله با تغییرات در آینده و حفظ وضع موجود را با خود همراه دارند ولی در مرحلهٔ گسترش روحیهٔ انقلابی دیگر این محافظه‌کاری به‌تدریج از بین می‌رود و به نوعی تنفر تبدیل می‌شود. هر چه این تنفر ریشه‌دارتر و بزرگ‌تر باشد چهرهٔ انقلاب‌ها خونین‌تر و پراضطراب‌تر نیز می‌شوند، زیرا در آن‌ها علاوه بر نابود شدن نهادهای حکومت پیشین، کارکنان و عوامل حکومت پیشین هم مورد خشم مردم قرار خواهند گرفت. به‌طور کلی به وجود آمدن این دوره شاخصهٔ بروز انقلاب است، هیچ‌کدام از مراحل قبل این حس را بر کل جامعه القا نمی‌کنند که می‌توانند به انقلاب منجر شوند ولی ورود به دورهٔ آنارشیستی، بازگشت به عقب را ناممکن می‌کند و از طرفی وجود جهل در سران حکومت که تنها به ادامهٔ سرکوب ادامه می‌دهند، این روحیه را هر روز بیشتر از پیش می‌کند و تا آن حد پیش می‌رود که به انقلاب منجر گردد.

وجود رهبر، تشابه بی‌حد و اندازه‌ای با ایدئولوژی دارد. در جریان یک انقلاب همیشه یک ایدئولوژی حاکم نمی‌شود، بلکه انواع ایدئولوژی‌ها در کنار یکدیگر فعال‌اند ولی ایدئولوژی عام‌تر و نزدیک‌تر به اکثریت (منظور کسانی است که در روند انقلاب نقش فعال‌تر و ایدئولوژیِ بارزتر و پذیرفتنی‌تری دارند) از درون خود رهبری را برای بسیج این نیروها در نظر می‌گیرد و نقش هم‌آوایی برای انقلاب شروع می‌گردد. این رهبر علاوه برداشتن ویژگی‌ها سیاسی و اجتماعی و قشری باید شجاعت ایستادن در مقابل حکومت را هم داشته باشد. همچنین تعادل و تعامل با دیگر گروه‌ها و دسته‌ها نیز در روند پیروزی نقش بسیار مهمی دارد. فیدل کاسترو در کوبا رهبری انقلاب کوبا را بر عهده داشت، این انقلاب‌ها که با رهبری یک نفر به‌عنوان شاخصهٔ بروز آن‌ها به موفقیت می‌رسند را انقلاب‌های تک نفری می‌نامند ولی در غالب انقلاب‌ها این‌گونه نیست که یک نفر بتواند بسیج نیروها و نارضایتی‌ها را مهیا کند. گاهی مانند انقلاب ۱۹۱۷ روسیه، الجزایر، انقلاب فرانسه، انقلاب ۱۹۷۹ نیکاراگوئه و انقلاب ۱۹۴۵ چین رهبری به یک گروه یا دسته بر می‌گردد که بیشترین پیروان را دارند و ایدئولوژی مقبول‌تر را در اختیار دارند، ولی در کل این دسته‌ها نیز شخصیت‌های مشهوری را دارند که حرف آخر را می‌زنند مثلاً لنین و بلشویسم در انقلاب ۱۹۱۷ روسیه، احمد آل در الجزایر، برینتون و روبسیر در انقلاب فرانسه، مائو در انقلاب ۱۹۴۵ چین.

تمامی دلایلی که برای به وجود آمدن انقلاب گفته می‌شود ممکن است صحیح باشد، ولی فقط یک دلیل اصلی موجود است که مادر و ریشهٔ تمام عوامل است و اینکه ذاتاً انسان موجودی آزاد است چه ازلحاظ عقیدتی یا سیاسی یا اجتماعی. در تمامی جوامع، قوانین هرچند هم مثبت باشند، با ذات انسان در تضاد هستند، هرچند که، این تضاد درونی اندک باشد. با ذکر این مثال که در تمامی انقلاب‌ها اکثر مردم بدون اطلاع کافی پیرو توده و جمعیت می‌شوند واگر انقلاب پیروز شود تا زمانی که هنوز سیستم جدید اعمال قدرت نکرده باشد مردم در شور و خوشحالی زیادی به سر می‌برند که ناشی از حس آزادی است و به محض تثبیت قدرت، خفقان ایجاد می‌شود که ان هم ناشی از حس سلب آزادی است. مثال واضح اینکه تخلفات رانندگی زمانی که پلیس راهنمایی ورانندگی اعمال قدرت یا با شدت بیشتری رانندگان را کنترل کند به‌مراتب بیشتر از زمانی است که رانندگان فقط با یک سری علایم هشداردهنده به رانندگی می‌پردازند. همکاری در جامعه و تمامی دنیا امری بسیار مثبت است که به پیشرفت اهداف در تمامی زمینه‌ها کمک می‌کند و باعث اتحاد می‌شود.

وقایع بعد از انقلاب تا اندازه‌ای تحت تأثیر همان رویدادهایی است که منجر به انقلاب شده‌اند. گاهی بعد از یک دوره مبارزه انقلابی کشور فقیر شده و به شدت دچار نفاق و از هم گسیختگی می‌گردد. بقایای رژیم شکست خورده یا گروه‌های دیگری که برای قدرت مبارزه می‌کنند، ممکن است نیروهای خود را دوباره گردآوری کرده و مجدداً دست به تهاجم بزنند. اگر دولت‌های مجاور با حکومت جدید دشمن باشند، احتمال موفقیت حکومت جدید در بازسازی اجتماعی کمتر می‌شود مگر آنکه آن‌ها از حکومت جدید طرفداری کرده و آمادهٔ حمایت جدی از آن باشند. برای مثال در اتحاد مقدس کشورهای اروپایی تصمیم داشتند تا هرنوع انقلابی به‌ویژه نوع دموکراتیک آن را در قارهٔ اروپا سرکوب کنند.

پدیدهٔ انقلاب چنان‌که نوشته‌های متفاوتِ باقی‌مانده از دوران باستان نشان می‌دهد قدمت بسیار دارد. براساس یک پژوهش علمی، در فاصله ۶۰۰ ق. م تا ۱۴۶ ق. م، ۸۴ انقلاب در یونان باستان به وقوع پیوست و در فاصله ۵۰۹ ق. م تا ۴۷۶ م. رم باستان شاهد ۱۷۰ انقلاب و اغتشاش عمده ثبت شده بود.

بیشتر انقلاب‌های سدهٔ بیستم در جوامع درحال‌توسعه رخ داده‌اند، نه در کشورهای صنعتی. دو رویداد انقلابی که عمیق‌ترین نتایج را برای کل جهان داشته‌اند، انقلاب ۱۹۱۷ روسیه و انقلاب چین بودند. هر دو انقلاب در جوامع عمدتاً روستایی و دهقانی رخ دادند، اگرچه شوروی از آن هنگام تا دههٔ نود میلادی به سطح بالایی از صنعتی شدن دست یافت. بسیاری از کشورهای جهان سوم نیز انقلاب را در این سده تجربه کرده‌اند برای مثال مکزیک، ترکیه، مصر، ویتنام، کوبا و نیکاراگوئه. ایران در سال ۱۳۵۷ شمسی (۱۹۷۹ میلادی) انقلابی را پشت سر گذاشت. برخی جامعه‌شناسان و متفکران غربی از پرداختن به انقلاب ایران و نظریه‌پردازی در مورد آن پرهیز کردند، گیدنز که یک جامعه‌شناس انگلیسی و مشاور تونی بلر نخست‌وزیر اسبق انگلیس می‌باشد در کتاب مبانی جامعه‌شناسی خود در بیان انقلاب‌هایی که در سدهٔ بیستم رخ داده‌است نامی از انقلاب ۱۹۷۹ ایران نبرده‌است.در صورتی که انقلاب ایران از اساسی‌ترین انقلاب‌های جهان بود به‌طوری‌که بزرگ‌ترین متحد ایران در جهان یعنی ایالات متحدهٔ آمریکا بود که ایران خود را به بزرگ‌ترین دشمن تبدیل کرد. همچنین روابط کشورهای عربی منطقه و اسرائیل با ایران زیر و رو شد.

جُنبِشِ مَشروطهٔ ایران مجموعه کوشش‌ها و رویدادهایی است که در دورهٔ مظفرالدین شاه قاجار و سپس در دورهٔ محمدعلی شاه قاجار برای تبدیل حکومت استبدادی به حکومت مشروطه رخ داد و منجر به تشکیل مجلس شورای ملی و تصویب اولین قانون اساسی ایران شد.

انقلاب سال ۱۳۵۷ هجری خورشیدی در ایران، (مشهور به انقلاب اسلامی) که با مشارکت اکثریت مردم، احزاب (توده، مجاهد، آزادیخواه، سوسیالیست، اسلام دموکرات و ملی‌گرایی...)، روشنفکران و دانشجویان ایران انجام پذیرفت، نظام پادشاهی ایران را سرنگون، و زمینهٔ روی کار آمدن نظام جمهوری اسلامی، به رهبری آیت‌الله روح‌الله خمینی، یک روحانی شیعه، در ایران را فراهم کرد. تفکرات و شخصیت‌های اسلامی، در این انقلاب حضور برجسته‌ای داشتند و خمینی آن را انقلاب اسلامی خواند. این انقلاب، با نام انقلاب بهمن ۵۷ نیز شناخته می‌شود .

دور نمای انقلاب اسلامی ایران: مرحله اول: که از تاریخ مهر ماه سال ۴۱ تا آبان سال ۴۳ را شامل می‌شود که سرچشمه‌های حرکت‌های انقلابی بود شامل وقایع مهمی مانند: مخالفت با انجمن‌های ایالتی و ولایتی، قیام ۱۵ خرداد، افشا گری‌های سید روح‌الله خمینی دستگیری و تبعید وی را شامل می‌شود. مرحله دوم: که از تاریخ آبان سال ۴۳ تا آبان سال ۵۶ را شامل می‌شود که دوران روشنگری و بسترسازی نامیده می‌شود شامل وقایع مهمی که ناشی از ۱۳ سال تلاش فرهنگی سید روح‌الله خمینی بود که با سازماندهی یاران وی همراه بود. مرحله سوم: از آبان سال ۵۶ تا بهمن ۵۷ که با کشته شدن مصطفی خمینی، موج جدید نهضت را در پی داشت و در پی ان قیام ۱۹ دی و سرایت آن به سایر مناطق کشور که منجر به بازگشت روح‌الله خمینی و پیروزی نهضت و شکست رژیم پهلوی گشت.

انقلاب فرانسه (۱۷۹۹-۱۷۸۹) دوره‌ای از دگرگونی‌های اجتماعی سیاسی در تاریخ سیاسی فرانسه و اروپا بود. این انقلاب، یکی از چند انقلاب مادر در طول تاریخ جهان است که پس از فراز و نشیب‌های بسیار، منجر به تغییر نظام سلطنتی به جمهوری در فرانسه و ایجاد پیامدهای عمیقی در کل اروپا شد.

انقلاب ۱۹۱۷ روسیه، جنبشی سیاسی در روسیه بود که در سال ۱۹۱۷ با سرنگونی دولت موقت که بعد از حکومت تزارها به روی کار آمده بود به اوج خود رسید و به برپایی اتحاد شوروی (که تا سال ۱۹۹۱ برقرار بود) انجامید. این انقلاب در دو مرحله صورت گرفت.

انقلاب آمریکا (به انگلیسی: American Revolution) مجموعه رویدادها و اندیشه‌ها و تغییراتی است که منجر به جدایی سیزده ایالت آمریکای شمالی از بریتانیا و تأسیس ایالات متحدهٔ آمریکا گردید. اولین درگیری‌ها از شهر بوستون شروع شد که به دنبال شدت عمل پادشاهی انگلستان به سرعت گسترش یافت. در ۱۷۶۵ در نیویورک کنگره‌ای متشکل از ۹ کوچ‌نشین تشکیل شد که سران این کوچ نشین‌ها در این کنگره برای اقدام علیه انگلیس هم پیمان شدند و در مه ۱۷۷۵ رهبران کوچ‌نشین از مردم درخواست کردند که برای مبارزه با اشغالگران آماده شوند.

به تحولاتی که در اواخر سدهٔ بیستم و اوایل سدهٔ بیست و یکم میلادی بر پایهٔ نظریهٔ مبارزات بدون خشونت، پس از فروپاشی کمونیسم در برخی اقمار شوروی سابق به وجود آمد و باعث تغییر تمایل هیئت حاکمهٔ این کشورها از بلوک شرق به بلوک غرب گردید، می‌گویند.
واسلاو هاول رئیس‌جمهور پیشین چک، که در آن زمان رهبر مخالفان این کشور بود، اولین بار این عبارت را به کار برد.

انقلاب گل سرخ انقلابی بدون خون‌ریزی بود که در سال ۱۳۸۲ در کشور گرجستان اتفاق افتاد و رئیس‌جمهور وقت ادوارد شواردنادزه را برکنار کرد.

انقلاب نارنجی یکسری از اتفاقات و اعتراضات در اوکراین است که از نوامبر ۲۰۰۴ تا ژانویه ۲۰۰۵ انجام گرفت. بلافاصله بعد از پایان انتخابات در سال ۲۰۰۴ ادعا شد که در انتخابات فسادهای گستردهٔ مالی، ارعاب و تهدید رای‌دهندگان و تقلب مستقیم انجام گرفته‌است. مسموم شدن ویکتور یوشچنکو در جریان مبارزات انتخاباتی و احتمال دست داشتن ویکتور یانوکوویچ رقیب سرسخت یوشچنکو در این قضیه، آتش انقلاب نارنجی اوکراین را برافروخت. پس از ۶ روز تظاهرات حامیان یوشچنکو پارلمان این کشور نتیجه انتخابات (که یانوکوویچ نامزد مورد حمایت روسیه را برنده اعلام می‌کرد) مخدوش و ملغی اعلام کرد و با برگزاری دوبارهٔ انتخابات که زیر نظارت موشکافانه ناظران داخلی و بین‌المللی بود، ویکتور یوشچنکو با کسب ۵۲ درصد آرا قدرت را در دست گرفت.

وجه تمایز "شورش" و "انقلاب" در اهدافی است که با توجه به نتایج دنبال می‌شود. در شورش‌ها، هدف مخالفان دولت معمولاً فراتر از اصلاح یا جبران ناخشنودیی خاص، یا تغییر فرد یا افرادی در دولت، یا خط‌مشی دولت نمی‌رود. اما در انقلاب‌ها مخالفان دولت اهداف و انگیزه‌های خود را در یک ایدئولوژی می‌گیرند که نهادهای موجود را از بیخ و بن غلط یا شر معرفی می‌کند و میان دولت، نخبه‌ها و گروه‌های مردمی دست‌به‌دست شود، تصور فوق را تغییر داده‌است. تغییر در فناوری، سیاست بین‌الملل، و اقتصادِ جهانی منابع تازهای در اختیار گروه‌های گوناگونی می‌گذارد و بعضی دولت‌ها را قوی‌تر و بعضی دیگر را ضعیف‌تر می‌کند. این تحولات خصوصاً در کشورهایی چشمگیرتر است که کاملاً درگیر رقابت استراتژیک ایالات متحدهٔ آمریکا و اتحاد شوروی بودهاند. از این رو، انقلاب (و تلاش برای انقلاب) در اواخر سدهٔ بیستم به‌وفور دیده شده‌است مثلاً در - ایران، نیکاراگوئه، افغانستان، لهستان، فیلیپین - و احتمالاً همچنان از ویژگی‌های مستمر سیاست جهان خواهد بود.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
انقلاب - ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
انقلاب (به انگلیسی: Revolution) به معنای زیر و رو شدن یا پشت و رو شدن و تحول است. این واژه در آغاز از اصطلاحات علم اخترشناسی بود و در معنای چرخش دورانی افلاک و بازگشت ستارگان به جای اول به کار می‌رفت. و ابتدا در جامعه‌شناسی به معنای بازگشت به گذشته‌است، گذشته‌ای روشن یا بازگشت آزادیِ ازدَست‌رفته.

# data[].attributes.body
It is how people rebel to overthrow nation or take control of the nation

# data[].attributes.body
Historical thinking is a set of critical literacy skills for evaluating and analyzing primary source documents to construct a meaningful account of the past.

# data[].attributes.body
The attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one in a violent manner

# data[].attributes.body
Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808–1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution in ...

# data[].attributes.body
The significance value, or p value, is the probability that a result occurred by chance. The significance value is compared to a predetermined cutoff (the significance level) to determine whether a test is statistically significant.

# data[].attributes.body
Experts are still debating what can and cannot constitute a revolution. Studies of revolutions often analyze events in Western history from a psychological perspective, but most analyzes also include global events and incorporate insights from the social sciences, including sociology and political science.

# data[].attributes.body
Turning upside down or turning back and transformation.

# data[].attributes.body
Political revolutions. The change produced has to do with the mechanisms to exercise power and can generate a new model of State administration or the return of a traditional one.
Economic Revolution, technological revolutions.,industrial revolutions etc

# data[].attributes.body
History (derived from Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía) 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation')[1] is the systematic study and documentation of human activity.

# data[].attributes.body
people rebelling for a change

# data[].attributes.body
Notable revolution in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio- political institutions, usually in response to perceived overwhelming autocracy or plutocracy.

Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center on several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808-1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Chinese Revolution of the 1940s, the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the European Revolutions of 1989.

The word "revolucion" is known in French from the 13th century, and "revolution" in English by the late fourteenth century, with regard to the revolving motion of celestial bodies. "Revolution" in the sense of representing abrupt change in a social order is attested by at least 1450. Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of James II with William III. This incident was termed the "Glorious Revolution".

There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature.

Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated between:

political revolutions, sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society, and;

slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (such as changes in religion).

Charles Tilly, a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated between;

rural revolution

urban revolution

Coup d'état, e.g. Egypt, 1952

revolution from above, e.g. Mao's Great leap forward of 1958

revolution from without, e.g. the allied invasions of Italy, 1944 and Germany, 1945.

revolution by osmosis, e.g. the gradual Islamization of several countries.

These categories are not mutually exclusive; the Russian revolution of 1917 began with the urban revolution to depose the Czar, followed by rural revolution, followed by the Bolshevik coup in November. Katz also cross-classified revolutions as follows;

Central; countries, usually Great powers, which play a leading role in a Revolutionary wave; e.g. the USSR, Nazi Germany, Iran since 1979.

Aspiring revolutions, which follow the Central revolution

subordinate or puppet revolutions

rival revolutions, e.g. communist Yugoslavia, and China after 1969

A further dimension to Katz's typology is that revolutions are either against (anti-monarchy, anti-dictatorial, anti-communist, anti-democratic) or for (pro-fascism, communism, nationalism etc.). In the latter cases, a transition period is often necessary to decide on the direction taken.

Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions (inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with Communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization); or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.

The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions. Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution or the Commercial Revolution. Note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville. A similar example is the Digital Revolution.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions

Perhaps most often, the word "revolution" is employed to denote a change in social and political institutions. Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. First, a broad one, including

any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion.

Second, a narrow one, in which

revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.

Jack Goldstone defines a revolution as

an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions have been studied in many social sciences, particularly sociology, political sciences and history. Among the leading scholars in that area have been or are Crane Brinton, Charles Brockett, Farideh Farhi, John Foran, John Mason Hart, Samuel Huntington, Jack Goldstone, Jeff Goodwin, Ted Roberts Gurr, Fred Halliday, Chalmers Johnson, Tim McDaniel, Barrington Moore, Jeffery Paige, Vilfredo Pareto, Terence Ranger, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Theda Skocpol, James Scott, Eric Selbin, Charles Tilly, Ellen Kay Trimberger, Carlos Vistas, John Walton, Timothy Wickham-Crowley, and Eric Wolf.

Scholars of revolutions, like Jack Goldstone, differentiate four current 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions. The scholars of the first generation such as Gustave Le Bon, Charles A. Ellwood, or Pitirim Sorokin, were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to social psychology, such as Le Bon's crowd psychology theory.

The works of Ted Robert Gurr, Ivo K. Feierbrand, Rosalind L. Feierbrand, James A. Geschwender, David C. Schwartz, and Denton E. Morrison fall into the first category. They followed theories of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g., modernization, recession, or discrimination), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.

The second group, composed of academics such as Chalmers Johnson, Neil Smelser, Bob Jessop, Mark Hart, Edward A. Tiryakian, and Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of Talcott Parsons and the structural-functionalist theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions.

Finally, the third group, which included writers such as Charles Tilly, Samuel P. Huntington, Peter Ammann, and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of political sciences and looked at pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing interest groups. In such a model, revolutions happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal decision making process traditional for a given political system, and simultaneously have enough resources to employ force in pursuing their goals.

The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some change results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (e.g., a war, a riot, a bad harvest), now is sufficient; however, if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution through reform or repression.

Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases: famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, such as the Glorious Revolution (1688), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Chinese Revolution (also known as the Chinese Civil War) (1927-1949). In his The Anatomy of Revolution, however, the Harvard historian Crane Brinton focused on the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.

The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige, and others expanding on the old Marxist class conflict approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous elites, and the impact of interstate economic and military competition on domestic political change. Particularly Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures [...] accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.

From the late 1980s, a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explained by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions.

Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and class struggles conflicts was no longer sufficient. The study of revolutions thus evolved in three directions, firstly, some researchers were applying previous or updated structuralist theories of revolutions to events beyond the previously analyzed, mostly European conflicts. Secondly, scholars called for greater attention to conscious agency in the form of ideology and culture in shaping revolutionary mobilization and objectives. Third, analysts of both revolutions and social movements realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on contentious politics has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena.

Further, social science research on revolution, primarily work in political science, has begun to move beyond individual or comparative case studies towards large-N empirical studies assessing the causes and implications of revolution. Initial studies generally rely on the Polity Project's data on democratization. Such analyses, like those by Enterline, Maoz, and Mansfield and Snyder, identify revolutions based on regime changes indicated by a change in the country's score on Polity's autocracy to democracy scale. More recently, scholars like Jeff Colgan have argued that Polity, which measures the degree of democratic or autocratic authority in a state's governing institutions based on the openness of executive recruitment, constraints on executive authority, and political competition, is inadequate because it measures democratization, not revolution, and fails to account for regimes which come to power by revolution but fail to change the structure of the state and society sufficiently to yield a notable difference in Polity score. Instead, Colgan offers a new data set on revolutionary leaders which identifies governments that "transform the existing social, political, and economic relationships of the state by overthrowing or rejecting the principal existing institutions of society." This most recent data set has been employed to make empirically-based contributions to the literature on revolution by identifying links between revolution and the likelihood of international disputes.

While revolutions encompass events ranging from the relatively peaceful revolutions that overthrew communist regimes to the violent Islamic revolution in Afghanistan, they exclude coups d'état, civil wars, revolts, and rebellions that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as Józef Piłsudski's May Coup of 1926 or the American Civil War), as well as peaceful transitions to democracy through institutional arrangements such as plebiscites and free elections, as in Spain after the death of Francisco Franco.

Lists of revolutions

References

Bibliography

Further reading

Beck, Colin J. (2018). "The Structure of Comparison in the Study of Revolution". Sociological Theory. 36 (2): 134-161. doi:10.1177/0735275118777004. S2CID 53669466.

Ness, Immanuel, ed. (2009). The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the Present. Malden, MA: Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-8464-9.

Popovic, Srdja (2015). Blueprint for Revolution: How to use rice pudding, Lego men, and other nonviolent techniques to galvanize communities, overthrow dictators, or simply change the world. New York: Spiegel and Grau. ISBN 978-0-8129-9530-5.

Perreau-Sausine, Emile (Spring 2005). "Les libéraux face aux révolutions : 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933" [Liberals facing revolutions: 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933]. Commentaire (in French). pp. 181-193.

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

# data[].attributes.body
In an item-parts relationship, the item is a concept that represents a group of other concepts – its parts – that occur together or in a temporal pattern.

# data[].attributes.body
Complete change from one constitution to another.
Radical modification from an existing constitution.1
Change of system, agent or regime to another.

# data[].attributes.body
Historians use primary sources as the raw evidence to analyze and interpret the past. They publish secondary sources - often scholarly articles or books - that explain their interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
Aug 5, 2014 — The real revolution in military affairs is forcing modern states to use the advancements in military technology to focus on minimizing civilian ...

# data[].attributes.body
tiana

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revolutions are an instrument of change and often an attempt to promote equality and combat oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important because it is a fundamental social change in the structure of power or organization that takes place in a relatively short or long period depending on the structure of the organization.

# data[].attributes.body
Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases: famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, such as the Glorious Revolution (1688), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Chinese Revolution (also known as the Chinese Civil War) (1927–1949).[18] In his The Anatomy of Revolution, however, the Harvard historian Crane Brinton focused on the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.[20]

# data[].attributes.body
American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808–1826), the European Revolutions of 1848.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.

revolution

These are words often used in combination with revolution.

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

computer revolution

Perhaps, in the midst of a computer revolution, it was felt that it had lost something of its relevance.

These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors. These are words often used in combination with revolution. Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

# data[].attributes.body
The courage of the revolution helps people to be inspired and create new things or rise up against their government.

# data[].attributes.body
Rubelio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The chemical revolution, also called the first chemical revolution, was the early modern reformulation of chemistry that culminated in the law of conservation of mass and the oxygen theory of combustion. During the 19th and 20th century, this transformation was credited to the work of the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (the " father of modern chemistry").

# data[].attributes.body
The systematic study of the new concept of revolution began in the 19th century.  In political cultures and political sciences, revolution is defined as: "overthrow of an old and outdated social system and replacing it with a new and progressive social system" or "overthrow of the government of a declining class or classes and replacing it with a new social system."  ».  In some cases, for the general definition of revolution, which includes any kind of fundamental transformation, it is defined as: "any kind of general and fundamental transformation

# data[].attributes.body
Etymology. From Middle English revolucion, borrowed from Old French revolucion, from Late Latin revolūtiōnem, accusative singular of revolūtiō (“the act of revolving; revolution”), from Latin revolvō (“roll back, revolve”).

# data[].attributes.body
French Revolution. The French Revolution of 1789 was a political and social conflict that brought about the fall of the absolutist monarchy of Louis XV, and its replacement by a monarchical system (initially, later republican). This system was controlled by a National Assembly, in which the Fundamental Rights of the Human Being were promulgated for the first time. During this period of tumult, the aristocracy of France was eradicated and radical popular forces were unleashed which ruled violently (the so-called “Terror”) until Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'état in 1799.

# data[].attributes.body
In the fields of history and political science, a revolution is a radical change in the established order, usually the established government and social institutions.May 19, 2022

# data[].attributes.body
Rubelio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio- political institutions, usually in response to perceived overwhelming autocracy or plutocracy.

Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center on several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808-1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Chinese Revolution of the 1940s, the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the European Revolutions of 1989.

The word "revolucion" is known in French from the 13th century, and "revolution" in English by the late fourteenth century, with regard to the revolving motion of celestial bodies. "Revolution" in the sense of representing abrupt change in a social order is attested by at least 1450. Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of James II with William III. This incident was termed the "Glorious Revolution".

There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature.

Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated between:

political revolutions, sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society, and;

slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (such as changes in religion).

Charles Tilly, a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated between;

rural revolution

urban revolution

Coup d'état, e.g. Egypt, 1952

revolution from above, e.g. Mao's Great leap forward of 1958

revolution from without, e.g. the allied invasions of Italy, 1944 and Germany, 1945.

revolution by osmosis, e.g. the gradual Islamization of several countries.

These categories are not mutually exclusive; the Russian revolution of 1917 began with the urban revolution to depose the Czar, followed by rural revolution, followed by the Bolshevik coup in November. Katz also cross-classified revolutions as follows;

Central; countries, usually Great powers, which play a leading role in a Revolutionary wave; e.g. the USSR, Nazi Germany, Iran since 1979.

Aspiring revolutions, which follow the Central revolution

subordinate or puppet revolutions

rival revolutions, e.g. communist Yugoslavia, and China after 1969

A further dimension to Katz's typology is that revolutions are either against (anti-monarchy, anti-dictatorial, anti-communist, anti-democratic) or for (pro-fascism, communism, nationalism etc.). In the latter cases, a transition period is often necessary to decide on the direction taken.

Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions (inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with Communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization); or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.

The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions. Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution or the Commercial Revolution. Note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville. A similar example is the Digital Revolution.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions

Perhaps most often, the word "revolution" is employed to denote a change in social and political institutions. Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. First, a broad one, including

any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion.

Second, a narrow one, in which

revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.

Jack Goldstone defines a revolution as

an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions have been studied in many social sciences, particularly sociology, political sciences and history. Among the leading scholars in that area have been or are Crane Brinton, Charles Brockett, Farideh Farhi, John Foran, John Mason Hart, Samuel Huntington, Jack Goldstone, Jeff Goodwin, Ted Roberts Gurr, Fred Halliday, Chalmers Johnson, Tim McDaniel, Barrington Moore, Jeffery Paige, Vilfredo Pareto, Terence Ranger, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Theda Skocpol, James Scott, Eric Selbin, Charles Tilly, Ellen Kay Trimberger, Carlos Vistas, John Walton, Timothy Wickham-Crowley, and Eric Wolf.

Scholars of revolutions, like Jack Goldstone, differentiate four current 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions. The scholars of the first generation such as Gustave Le Bon, Charles A. Ellwood, or Pitirim Sorokin, were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to social psychology, such as Le Bon's crowd psychology theory.

The works of Ted Robert Gurr, Ivo K. Feierbrand, Rosalind L. Feierbrand, James A. Geschwender, David C. Schwartz, and Denton E. Morrison fall into the first category. They followed theories of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g., modernization, recession, or discrimination), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.

The second group, composed of academics such as Chalmers Johnson, Neil Smelser, Bob Jessop, Mark Hart, Edward A. Tiryakian, and Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of Talcott Parsons and the structural-functionalist theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions.

Finally, the third group, which included writers such as Charles Tilly, Samuel P. Huntington, Peter Ammann, and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of political sciences and looked at pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing interest groups. In such a model, revolutions happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal decision making process traditional for a given political system, and simultaneously have enough resources to employ force in pursuing their goals.

The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some change results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (e.g., a war, a riot, a bad harvest), now is sufficient; however, if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution through reform or repression.

Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases: famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, such as the Glorious Revolution (1688), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Chinese Revolution (also known as the Chinese Civil War) (1927-1949). In his The Anatomy of Revolution, however, the Harvard historian Crane Brinton focused on the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.

The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige, and others expanding on the old Marxist class conflict approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous elites, and the impact of interstate economic and military competition on domestic political change. Particularly Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures [...] accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.

From the late 1980s, a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explained by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions.

Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and class struggles conflicts was no longer sufficient. The study of revolutions thus evolved in three directions, firstly, some researchers were applying previous or updated structuralist theories of revolutions to events beyond the previously analyzed, mostly European conflicts. Secondly, scholars called for greater attention to conscious agency in the form of ideology and culture in shaping revolutionary mobilization and objectives. Third, analysts of both revolutions and social movements realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on contentious politics has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena.

Further, social science research on revolution, primarily work in political science, has begun to move beyond individual or comparative case studies towards large-N empirical studies assessing the causes and implications of revolution. Initial studies generally rely on the Polity Project's data on democratization. Such analyses, like those by Enterline, Maoz, and Mansfield and Snyder, identify revolutions based on regime changes indicated by a change in the country's score on Polity's autocracy to democracy scale. More recently, scholars like Jeff Colgan have argued that Polity, which measures the degree of democratic or autocratic authority in a state's governing institutions based on the openness of executive recruitment, constraints on executive authority, and political competition, is inadequate because it measures democratization, not revolution, and fails to account for regimes which come to power by revolution but fail to change the structure of the state and society sufficiently to yield a notable difference in Polity score. Instead, Colgan offers a new data set on revolutionary leaders which identifies governments that "transform the existing social, political, and economic relationships of the state by overthrowing or rejecting the principal existing institutions of society." This most recent data set has been employed to make empirically-based contributions to the literature on revolution by identifying links between revolution and the likelihood of international disputes.

While revolutions encompass events ranging from the relatively peaceful revolutions that overthrew communist regimes to the violent Islamic revolution in Afghanistan, they exclude coups d'état, civil wars, revolts, and rebellions that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as Józef Piłsudski's May Coup of 1926 or the American Civil War), as well as peaceful transitions to democracy through institutional arrangements such as plebiscites and free elections, as in Spain after the death of Francisco Franco.

Lists of revolutions

References

Bibliography

Further reading

Beck, Colin J. (2018). "The Structure of Comparison in the Study of Revolution". Sociological Theory. 36 (2): 134-161. doi:10.1177/0735275118777004. S2CID 53669466.

Ness, Immanuel, ed. (2009). The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the Present. Malden, MA: Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-8464-9.

Popovic, Srdja (2015). Blueprint for Revolution: How to use rice pudding, Lego men, and other nonviolent techniques to galvanize communities, overthrow dictators, or simply change the world. New York: Spiegel and Grau. ISBN 978-0-8129-9530-5.

Perreau-Sausine, Emile (Spring 2005). "Les libéraux face aux révolutions : 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933" [Liberals facing revolutions: 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933]. Commentaire (in French). pp. 181-193.

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

# data[].attributes.body
The relationship of revolution with 2 genres (those I know or read) the revolution of certain technologies or materials or the revolution of people against their governments.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout history, many materials have been compiled by Western thinkers and thinkers in relation to the Islamic world and Muslim society in general, and after the Iranian Islamic Revolution, from the moment of victory onwards in particular;  However, until now, none of the thinkers and thinkers who took up the pen in this field and wrote about Islamism in the world, Iran and the Iranian revolution, have been able to accurately and far away from the sensual and political, social and cultural suspicions of the West.  be researched and studied and few people can be found who have overcome this problem.

# data[].attributes.body
The revolution is necessary to advance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio- political institutions, usually in response to perceived overwhelming autocracy or plutocracy.

Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center on several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808-1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Chinese Revolution of the 1940s, the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the European Revolutions of 1989.

The word "revolucion" is known in French from the 13th century, and "revolution" in English by the late fourteenth century, with regard to the revolving motion of celestial bodies. "Revolution" in the sense of representing abrupt change in a social order is attested by at least 1450. Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of James II with William III. This incident was termed the "Glorious Revolution".

There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature.

Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated between:

political revolutions, sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society, and;

slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (such as changes in religion).

Charles Tilly, a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated between;

rural revolution

urban revolution

Coup d'état, e.g. Egypt, 1952

revolution from above, e.g. Mao's Great leap forward of 1958

revolution from without, e.g. the allied invasions of Italy, 1944 and Germany, 1945.

revolution by osmosis, e.g. the gradual Islamization of several countries.

These categories are not mutually exclusive; the Russian revolution of 1917 began with the urban revolution to depose the Czar, followed by rural revolution, followed by the Bolshevik coup in November. Katz also cross-classified revolutions as follows;

Central; countries, usually Great powers, which play a leading role in a Revolutionary wave; e.g. the USSR, Nazi Germany, Iran since 1979.

Aspiring revolutions, which follow the Central revolution

subordinate or puppet revolutions

rival revolutions, e.g. communist Yugoslavia, and China after 1969

A further dimension to Katz's typology is that revolutions are either against (anti-monarchy, anti-dictatorial, anti-communist, anti-democratic) or for (pro-fascism, communism, nationalism etc.). In the latter cases, a transition period is often necessary to decide on the direction taken.

Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions (inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with Communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization); or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.

The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions. Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution or the Commercial Revolution. Note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville. A similar example is the Digital Revolution.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions

Perhaps most often, the word "revolution" is employed to denote a change in social and political institutions. Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. First, a broad one, including

any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion.

Second, a narrow one, in which

revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.

Jack Goldstone defines a revolution as

an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions have been studied in many social sciences, particularly sociology, political sciences and history. Among the leading scholars in that area have been or are Crane Brinton, Charles Brockett, Farideh Farhi, John Foran, John Mason Hart, Samuel Huntington, Jack Goldstone, Jeff Goodwin, Ted Roberts Gurr, Fred Halliday, Chalmers Johnson, Tim McDaniel, Barrington Moore, Jeffery Paige, Vilfredo Pareto, Terence Ranger, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Theda Skocpol, James Scott, Eric Selbin, Charles Tilly, Ellen Kay Trimberger, Carlos Vistas, John Walton, Timothy Wickham-Crowley, and Eric Wolf.

Scholars of revolutions, like Jack Goldstone, differentiate four current 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions. The scholars of the first generation such as Gustave Le Bon, Charles A. Ellwood, or Pitirim Sorokin, were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to social psychology, such as Le Bon's crowd psychology theory.

The works of Ted Robert Gurr, Ivo K. Feierbrand, Rosalind L. Feierbrand, James A. Geschwender, David C. Schwartz, and Denton E. Morrison fall into the first category. They followed theories of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g., modernization, recession, or discrimination), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.

The second group, composed of academics such as Chalmers Johnson, Neil Smelser, Bob Jessop, Mark Hart, Edward A. Tiryakian, and Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of Talcott Parsons and the structural-functionalist theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions.

Finally, the third group, which included writers such as Charles Tilly, Samuel P. Huntington, Peter Ammann, and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of political sciences and looked at pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing interest groups. In such a model, revolutions happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal decision making process traditional for a given political system, and simultaneously have enough resources to employ force in pursuing their goals.

The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some change results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (e.g., a war, a riot, a bad harvest), now is sufficient; however, if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution through reform or repression.

Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases: famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, such as the Glorious Revolution (1688), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Chinese Revolution (also known as the Chinese Civil War) (1927-1949). In his The Anatomy of Revolution, however, the Harvard historian Crane Brinton focused on the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.

The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige, and others expanding on the old Marxist class conflict approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous elites, and the impact of interstate economic and military competition on domestic political change. Particularly Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures [...] accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.

From the late 1980s, a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explained by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions.

Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and class struggles conflicts was no longer sufficient. The study of revolutions thus evolved in three directions, firstly, some researchers were applying previous or updated structuralist theories of revolutions to events beyond the previously analyzed, mostly European conflicts. Secondly, scholars called for greater attention to conscious agency in the form of ideology and culture in shaping revolutionary mobilization and objectives. Third, analysts of both revolutions and social movements realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on contentious politics has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena.

Further, social science research on revolution, primarily work in political science, has begun to move beyond individual or comparative case studies towards large-N empirical studies assessing the causes and implications of revolution. Initial studies generally rely on the Polity Project's data on democratization. Such analyses, like those by Enterline, Maoz, and Mansfield and Snyder, identify revolutions based on regime changes indicated by a change in the country's score on Polity's autocracy to democracy scale. More recently, scholars like Jeff Colgan have argued that Polity, which measures the degree of democratic or autocratic authority in a state's governing institutions based on the openness of executive recruitment, constraints on executive authority, and political competition, is inadequate because it measures democratization, not revolution, and fails to account for regimes which come to power by revolution but fail to change the structure of the state and society sufficiently to yield a notable difference in Polity score. Instead, Colgan offers a new data set on revolutionary leaders which identifies governments that "transform the existing social, political, and economic relationships of the state by overthrowing or rejecting the principal existing institutions of society." This most recent data set has been employed to make empirically-based contributions to the literature on revolution by identifying links between revolution and the likelihood of international disputes.

While revolutions encompass events ranging from the relatively peaceful revolutions that overthrew communist regimes to the violent Islamic revolution in Afghanistan, they exclude coups d'état, civil wars, revolts, and rebellions that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as Józef Piłsudski's May Coup of 1926 or the American Civil War), as well as peaceful transitions to democracy through institutional arrangements such as plebiscites and free elections, as in Spain after the death of Francisco Franco.

Lists of revolutions

Further reading

Bibliography

Popovic, Srdja. Blueprint for Revolution: How to use rice pudding, Lego men, and other nonviolent techniques to galvanize communities, overthrow dictators, or simply change the world. Spiegel and Grau, New York, 2015, ISBN 978-0-8129-9530-5

The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the Present, ed. by Immanuel Ness, Malden, MA [etc.]: Wiley & Sons, 2009, ISBN 1-4051-8464-7

Perreau-Sausine, Emile. "Les libéraux face aux révolutions : 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933", Commentaire, Spring 2005, pp. 181-193

References

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

# data[].attributes.body
BY Encyclopedic Entry Vocabulary : a revolution is a radical change in the established order, usually the established government and social institutions.

# data[].attributes.body
when I think of Resolution I think of wars or mob.

# data[].attributes.body
i think violence is Violent and radical change in the political institutions of a society.

# data[].attributes.body
when large masses of people decide to take power from a government that treats its people unfairly.

# data[].attributes.body
That words make me think about : radical change , transformation , protess , resistance ,disagreement( contradict) ,allies , wars, evolution .

# data[].attributes.body
Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808–1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Chinese Revolution of the 1940s, the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the European Revolutions of 1989.

# data[].attributes.body
In political science, a revolution is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression or political incompetence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio- political institutions, usually in response to perceived overwhelming autocracy or plutocracy.

Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center on several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808-1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Chinese Revolution of the 1940s, the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the European Revolutions of 1989.

The word "revolucion" is known in French from the 13th century, and "revolution" in English by the late fourteenth century, with regard to the revolving motion of celestial bodies. "Revolution" in the sense of representing abrupt change in a social order is attested by at least 1450. Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of James II with William III. This incident was termed the "Glorious Revolution".

There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature.

Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated between:

political revolutions, sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society, and;

slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (such as changes in religion).

Charles Tilly, a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated between;

rural revolution

urban revolution

Coup d'état, e.g. Egypt, 1952

revolution from above, e.g. Mao's Great leap forward of 1958

revolution from without, e.g. the allied invasions of Italy, 1944 and Germany, 1945.

revolution by osmosis, e.g. the gradual Islamization of several countries.

These categories are not mutually exclusive; the Russian revolution of 1917 began with the urban revolution to depose the Czar, followed by rural revolution, followed by the Bolshevik coup in November. Katz also cross-classified revolutions as follows;

Central; countries, usually Great powers, which play a leading role in a Revolutionary wave; e.g. the USSR, Nazi Germany, Iran since 1979.

Aspiring revolutions, which follow the Central revolution

subordinate or puppet revolutions

rival revolutions, e.g. communist Yugoslavia, and China after 1969

A further dimension to Katz's typology is that revolutions are either against (anti-monarchy, anti-dictatorial, anti-communist, anti-democratic) or for (pro-fascism, communism, nationalism etc.). In the latter cases, a transition period is often necessary to decide on the direction taken.

Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions (inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with Communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization); or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.

The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions. Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution or the Commercial Revolution. Note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville. A similar example is the Digital Revolution.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions

Perhaps most often, the word "revolution" is employed to denote a change in social and political institutions. Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. First, a broad one, including

any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion.

Second, a narrow one, in which

revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.

Jack Goldstone defines a revolution as

an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions have been studied in many social sciences, particularly sociology, political sciences and history. Among the leading scholars in that area have been or are Crane Brinton, Charles Brockett, Farideh Farhi, John Foran, John Mason Hart, Samuel Huntington, Jack Goldstone, Jeff Goodwin, Ted Roberts Gurr, Fred Halliday, Chalmers Johnson, Tim McDaniel, Barrington Moore, Jeffery Paige, Vilfredo Pareto, Terence Ranger, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Theda Skocpol, James Scott, Eric Selbin, Charles Tilly, Ellen Kay Trimberger, Carlos Vistas, John Walton, Timothy Wickham-Crowley, and Eric Wolf.

Scholars of revolutions, like Jack Goldstone, differentiate four current 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions. The scholars of the first generation such as Gustave Le Bon, Charles A. Ellwood, or Pitirim Sorokin, were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to social psychology, such as Le Bon's crowd psychology theory.

The works of Ted Robert Gurr, Ivo K. Feierbrand, Rosalind L. Feierbrand, James A. Geschwender, David C. Schwartz, and Denton E. Morrison fall into the first category. They followed theories of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g., modernization, recession, or discrimination), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.

The second group, composed of academics such as Chalmers Johnson, Neil Smelser, Bob Jessop, Mark Hart, Edward A. Tiryakian, and Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of Talcott Parsons and the structural-functionalist theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions.

Finally, the third group, which included writers such as Charles Tilly, Samuel P. Huntington, Peter Ammann, and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of political sciences and looked at pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing interest groups. In such a model, revolutions happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal decision making process traditional for a given political system, and simultaneously have enough resources to employ force in pursuing their goals.

The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some change results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (e.g., a war, a riot, a bad harvest), now is sufficient; however, if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution through reform or repression.

Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases: famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, such as the Glorious Revolution (1688), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Chinese Revolution (also known as the Chinese Civil War) (1927-1949). In his The Anatomy of Revolution, however, the Harvard historian Crane Brinton focused on the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.

The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige, and others expanding on the old Marxist class conflict approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous elites, and the impact of interstate economic and military competition on domestic political change. Particularly Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures [...] accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.

From the late 1980s, a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explained by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions.

Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and class struggles conflicts was no longer sufficient. The study of revolutions thus evolved in three directions, firstly, some researchers were applying previous or updated structuralist theories of revolutions to events beyond the previously analyzed, mostly European conflicts. Secondly, scholars called for greater attention to conscious agency in the form of ideology and culture in shaping revolutionary mobilization and objectives. Third, analysts of both revolutions and social movements realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on contentious politics has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena.

Further, social science research on revolution, primarily work in political science, has begun to move beyond individual or comparative case studies towards large-N empirical studies assessing the causes and implications of revolution. Initial studies generally rely on the Polity Project's data on democratization. Such analyses, like those by Enterline, Maoz, and Mansfield and Snyder, identify revolutions based on regime changes indicated by a change in the country's score on Polity's autocracy to democracy scale. More recently, scholars like Jeff Colgan have argued that Polity, which measures the degree of democratic or autocratic authority in a state's governing institutions based on the openness of executive recruitment, constraints on executive authority, and political competition, is inadequate because it measures democratization, not revolution, and fails to account for regimes which come to power by revolution but fail to change the structure of the state and society sufficiently to yield a notable difference in Polity score. Instead, Colgan offers a new data set on revolutionary leaders which identifies governments that "transform the existing social, political, and economic relationships of the state by overthrowing or rejecting the principal existing institutions of society." This most recent data set has been employed to make empirically-based contributions to the literature on revolution by identifying links between revolution and the likelihood of international disputes.

While revolutions encompass events ranging from the relatively peaceful revolutions that overthrew communist regimes to the violent Islamic revolution in Afghanistan, they exclude coups d'état, civil wars, revolts, and rebellions that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as Józef Piłsudski's May Coup of 1926 or the American Civil War), as well as peaceful transitions to democracy through institutional arrangements such as plebiscites and free elections, as in Spain after the death of Francisco Franco.

Lists of revolutions

Further reading

Bibliography

Popovic, Srdja. Blueprint for Revolution: How to use rice pudding, Lego men, and other nonviolent techniques to galvanize communities, overthrow dictators, or simply change the world. Spiegel and Grau, New York, 2015, ISBN 978-0-8129-9530-5

The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the Present, ed. by Immanuel Ness, Malden, MA [etc.]: Wiley & Sons, 2009, ISBN 1-4051-8464-7

Perreau-Sausine, Emile. "Les libéraux face aux révolutions : 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933", Commentaire, Spring 2005, pp. 181-193

References

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In political science, a revolution ( Latin: revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.

# data[].attributes.body
revolutionnary war in china , 1911.

# data[].attributes.body
In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization which occurs when the population revolts against the government, typically due to perceived oppression (political, social, economic) or political incompetence.[1]

# data[].attributes.body
Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808–1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions, usually in response to perceived overwhelming autocracy or plutocracy.

# data[].attributes.body
Etymology. From Middle English revolucion, borrowed from Old French revolucion, from Late Latin revolūtiōnem, accusative singular of revolūtiō (“the act of revolving; revolution”), from Latin revolvō (“roll back, revolve”).

# data[].attributes.body
the French Revolution (1789–1799)

# data[].attributes.body
"An attempt, by a large number of people, to change the government of a country, especially by violent action." -Oxford dictionary

# data[].attributes.body
American resolution

# data[].attributes.body
Is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study.

# data[].attributes.body
1645 – Blaise Pascal invents the adding machine.
1652 – Thomas Bartholin discovers the human lymphatic system.
1654 – Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat invent the mathematics of probability and statistics.
1656 – Christiaan Huygens discovers Saturn's rings after building a new telescope.

# data[].attributes.body
"late 14c., revolucioun, originally of celestial bodies, "one (apparent) rotation about the earth," also the time required for this, also "act or fact of moving in a circular course," from Old French revolucion "course, revolution" of celestial bodies (13c.) or directly from Late Latin revolutionem (nominative revolutio) "a revolving," noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin revolvere "turn, roll back" (see revolve)."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
revolution | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet’s go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

# data[].attributes.body
When I think of revolution, I think of changes that nobody has tried to do before that will eventually help people in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Quantum physicists Jonathan Dowling and Gerard Milburn coined the term “quantum revolution” in a 2002 paper. In it, they argue that we have now entered a new era, a second quantum revolution. “It just dawned on me that actually there was a whole new technological frontier opening up,” says Milburn, professor emeritus at the University of Queensland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did you know that Paul Revere didn't ride alone, and there were women on the Revolutionary War battlefields? Find out more about the war's lesser-known

# data[].attributes.body
The French Revolution began in 1789 and lasted until 1794. King Louis XVI needed more money, but had failed to raise more taxes when he had called a meeting of the Estates General. This instead turned into a protest about conditions in France.

# data[].attributes.body
The act of revolving, or turning round on an axis or a center; the motion of a body round a fixed point or line; rotation; as, the revolution of a wheel, of a top, of the earth on its axis, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Biology Articles, Tutorials & Dictionary Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
revolution
1. The act of revolving, or turning round on an axis or a center; the motion of a body round a fixed point or line; rotation; as, the revolution of a wheel, of a top, of the earth on its axis, etc.
2. Return to a point before occupied, or to a point relatively the same; a rolling back; return; as, revolution in an ellipse or spiral. That fear comes thundering back, with dreadful revolution, On my defenseless head. ( milton)
3. The space measured by the regular return of a revolving body; the period made by the regular recurrence of a measure of time, or by a succession of similar events. The short revolution of a day.
4. (Science: astronomy) The motion of any body, as a planet or satellite, in a curved line or orbit, until it returns to the same point again, or to a point relatively the same; designated as the annual, anomalistic, nodical, sidereal, or tropical revolution, according as the point of return or completion has a fixed relation to the year, the anomaly, the nodes, the stars, or the tropics; as, the revolution of the earth about the sun; the revolution of the moon about the earth.
The term is sometimes applied in astronomy to the motion of a body, as a planet, about its own axis, but this motion is usually called rotation.
5. (Science: geometry) The motion of a point, line, or surface about a point or line as its center or axis, in such a manner that a moving point generates a curve, a moving line a surface (called a surface of revolution), and a moving surface a solid (called a solid of revolution); as, the revolution of a right-angled triangle about one of its sides generates a cone; the revolution of a semicircle about the diameter generates a sphere.
6. A total or radical change; as, a revolution in one's circumstances or way of living. The ability . . . Of the great philosopher speedily produced a complete revolution throughout the department. (Macaulay)
7. A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed. The violence of revolutions is generally proportioned to the degree of the maladministration which has produced them. (Macaulay)
When used without qualifying terms, the word is often applied specifically, by way of eminence, to: (a) The english Revolution in 1689, when William of orange and Mary became the reigning sovereigns, in place of James II. (b) The American Revolution, beginning in 1775, by which the English colonies, since known as the united states, secured their independence. (c) The revolution in France in 1789, commonly called the french Revolution, the subsequent revolutions in that country being designated by their dates, as the Revolution of 1830, of 1848, etc.
Origin: F. Revolution, L. Revolutio. See Revolve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
revolution 1. The act of revolving, or turning round on an axis or a center; the motion of a body round a fixed point or line; rotation; as, the revolution of a wheel, of a top, of the earth on its axis, etc. 2.

# data[].attributes.body
a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture. a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting ...

# data[].attributes.body
when I hear the word revolution I think about rebelion against something bad that been happenned for a long time

# data[].attributes.body
Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the creation of the United States through the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808–1826), the European Revolutions of 1848.

# data[].attributes.body
In the fields of history and political science, a revolution is a radical change in the established order, usually the established government and social institutions.