Origin of Revolution

I would like to address the question of whether Revolution begins at the top or the bottom. While it may seem like a cop-out answer I would like to argue that it starts somewhere in the middle.

The Enlightenment thinkers who created and popularized the theories that drove the American and French Revolutions were often, such as Voltaire and Rousseau, part of the emerging 18th century middle class. Their place in the middle was a likely source of their philosophies. They reaped enough from the system to have time to think, to write, and to share ideas in salons. But, as they were not a part of the ruling class they still suffered, to some extent, from its injustices. Peasants were not educated and were forced to labor for most of each day. Thus, even if they had the ability to craft revolutionary thought into cohesive argument they lacked time to spread those ideas and take action on them, so they could not be revolutionary. While famous Enlightened Despots, Catherine the Great, Joseph II, etc., made reforms to greater and lesser extents none in the ruling class were willing to fundamentally change government structure in such a way as to take power away from themselves. So the ruling class could not be revolutionary either. But the philosophes in the middle class were able to argue revolutionary ideas and spread them.

When these ideas spurred action in the United States and France they were not carried out by destitute peasants or even the idealized "common man" of America. It was lawyers, merchants, and wealthy land owners that put together the Continental Congresses that eventually declared independence from Britain. Similarly it was a circle of educated lawyers representing The Third Estate that wrote The Rights of Man, not a rabble of peasants that were invited to Versailles. Admittedly both groups brought the lower classes to their side to topple the highest classes, but those lower classes were not the origin of Revolution.

As or class guest Alex Gorodinski pointed out, 20th century revolutions most often occur when a large number of educated youth are unemployed or otherwise do not believe they have a future. Whether they were Czech students in Prague Spring in 1968, or unemployed students in North Africa during the Arab Spring, these are people very much in the middle of society. The system has benefited them for most of their lives. The fact that they have been educated places them several levels above destitute. However, specifically for the Arab Spring, corrupt regimes brought about a situation in which to get ahead one had to know the right people, and students had been promised their intelligence and good grades would get them jobs. They had been promised a bright path forward but had come against an impenetrable wall.

As had been said by many philosophers in many different ways, one has to be made aware of being a slave before one thinks it is wrong. The truly destitute have, consciously or subconsciously usually accepted their position. But those middle ranks of society are generally aware that they have risen out of destitution have tasted a better life so will fight ensure they do not slip back.

In our current situation in the United States a similar trend is occurring. The Occupy movement, the protests for living wage, and protests of student loan debt are all cries of pain against a system that promised so much but now threatens to catapult the those in the middle class back into the lower classes.

I'd really enjoy hearing your thoughts on this theory, whether you agree or disagree, or whether you just want to argue one way or the other for the sake of argument.