‘1789, 1848, 1917...’ Is there a logic to this sequence?

"Revolutions are like earthquakes." The words of Jack Goldstone allows us to view revolutions as unpredictable and complex processes. He argues that when they occur, they can often be a shock to everyone, including the rulers, the revolutionaries themselves, and foreign powers. Lenin himself, famously remarked in January 1917, just months before the Tsar's regime collapsed, that "We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution". Such a logical analysis of revolutions can, perhaps, be found in the work of Hannah Arendt and the narrow confines of her ‘ideal’ revolution, and her examples of France in 1789 and Russia in 1917. Her work suggests that a disaffection amongst the elites sits at the heart of the cause of these revolutions. However, it is evident that elites alone did not topple the ancient regime. Instead, it will be argued that for revolutions to occur we must consider the more complex, interacting blend of; disaffection with the elites, economic and fiscal constraints, mass mobilization and popular outrage, a shared sense of social justice and ideology, and a consideration of the larger international context prior to 1917 and 1789. It must also be understood that the questions we ask ourselves appear trapped in strict cases of periodisation, and a narrow sense of ‘beginning’ and ‘end’, as the years 1917,1848, and 1917 would suggest. Instead, this essay will stress that revolutions are long processes and the timescales vary, and perhaps Lenin was correct in his remarks on the decisive battles yet to come. The causes and logical sequence that once appeared ‘ideal’ for Arendt no longer apply to the developments across the period and beyond the single years selected in the question at hand. I will focus namely on that of 1917 and the longevity of this Russian revolutionary tale, with echoes found in Stalin’s terror, and to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union of the revolutions 1989, some 72 years after the glorified ‘1917’ Russian Revolution. Other events, later on, and the veering through counterrevolution, civil war, terror, renewed revolutionary episodes, therefore all help to tell the story of revolutions and certainly do not fit an ‘ideal’ type. Main arguments: To Expand our narrative of the course of a revolution. Revolutions are long processes with conflicting ideological and do not fit a logical sequence or as Arendt would put it, an ‘ideal’ type. The Russian case : Expand the timeline- 1917-1989- periodization is key to Russian history, should the difference phases of communism be considered part of the revolution? Timescales are hard to determine. Is the major outcome of the Russian Revolution of 1917 the millions killed by Stalin’s collectivization campaigns in 1930s? Should the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91 be viewed as the inevitable outcome of the Russian Revolution seventy-two years later, or instead the result of the poor choices of Gorbachev in the 1980s? The longevity, no logical sequence. Other events, later on, that help to tell the story of the revolution. When does a revolution begin and end? It is impossible to pinpoint. The French case. Timeline to frame my argument: French Revolution of 1789, 1791 and Olympe de Gouge’s Declaration of the rights of women and the citizen. A good example= Women and the French Revolution: Women were not given the vote in France until 1944. The Revolution is hailed for creating a democracy, yet in more than half the population were denied the vote for more than a hundred years. 1789 should be the significant date for women and the FR. The same can be said for the American Revolution of 1776 and the denial of the rights of women and slave in the Constitution adopted in 1787- Women let down by the revolutionary promise of 1789, the work of Olympe de Gauge should be adopted into the tale of the revolutionary history of the period, beyond that of the single year of 1789. Conclusions: Revolutions as long processes, beyond that of the single years of 1789, 1917, and 1848, for instance.Other events, later on, that help to tell the story of the revolution. More gradual developments and change over the period. Depends on when and where we are historically situated. We must not fall into the trap of Arendt's ideal type of revolution.