States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China

Skocpol uses very informative, historically packed writing to demonstrate her view on the reasons behind the three revolutions. Her opinions make very much sense as is clear through her thourough analysis and tons of obvious research. She repeats her main points when things get a little heavy and confusing but does not talk more than is necessary. I recommend to anyone interested in the theory of revolutions and state systems in collapse.

Theda Skocpol seeks to explain the causes of social revolution through a structural paradigm. Her level of analysis is the state. This paradigm, holding the state as the level of analysis and concentrating on structure, is defined well by Migdal. "This is a system-dominant perspective in which structuralists see states as interchangeable to the degree that they expect them to act similarly if facing the same array of forces" (215). Skocpol contends that external forces can lead to economic and military instability within a state. This instability weakens both the structure of the state, and subsequently the nation's societal structure. In turn, this creates an environment well-suited for social revolutions. Skocpol defines social revolution as causing two important changes which separate it from other forms of political upheavals: "societal structural change with class upheaval" and "the coincidence of political with social transformation" (5). In order to discover similar phenomena common across states which lead to social revolution, Skocpol uses a method of comparative historical analysis. She seeks to establish relationships between "causal variables referring to the strength and structure of old regime states and the relations of state organizations to class structures" (35). Her analysis spans three revolutions: France 1789, China 1911 and Russia 1917. In looking for commonalities across state boundaries, Skocpol is using what she referred to in Bringing the State Back In as the Toucquevillian approach. In this case, Skocpol is using the Toucquevillian point of view to explore how "state structures and the activities of states" influence social revolution. Skocpol asserts that revolutions emerge from "political crises centered in the structures and situations of old regime states" (47). The author argues that in the cases of France, China and Russia, all regimes faced similar threats which affected state, and consequently, societal structures. According to Skocpol, a number of transnational and internal events can lead to changes in state structure: threats of invasion, defeats in war, political dependency and economic inequalities. In discussing state failure, Migdal writes, "States crack when they are hit simultaneously by three sorts of crises - a state financial emergency, severe elite divisions, and a potential and propensity for popular groups to mobilize" (216). In Skocpol's historical analysis, all three old regimes suffered similar pressures. First, pre-revolutionary regimes could not compete economically with their industrializing neighbors. All three old regimes experienced difficulty making the transition from agrarian economies to industrialized societies. This created economic inequality between states. As Skocpol writes, "Modern social revolutions have happened only in countries situated in disadvantaged positions within international arenas" (23). In addition to economic disequilibrium, all three old

Milan3 introduced a very excellent further reading in the review. Morre Barrington's work, of course is more original for political sociology as he is Skocpol's teacher. However, at least to me, Skocpol's comparative study is more interesting and more easy to read for new comers. Surely, no single book can cover all elements in such a wide field. "people" seems essential and important in studying political sociology, but not just a minor detail. I agree to Michael Springfield, Skocpol already expresses her views convincingly and with conviction, especially on "people"'s role in revolution. anyway, I enjoy discussing with Milan3 and Michael Springfield here and thank you!

This is clearly Skocpol's best work. She expresses her views convincingly and with conviction. I highly recomend this book.

A new way of studying political sociology was first initiated when Skocpol's "States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China" was published in the 1970s.Skocpol's discussion in the book is based on Marxist class struggle revolution, combined with the consensus theories which explain revolution as response to disequilibum of social system. In the very beginning, Skocpol attended on a fundamental question on most revolutions happened in old-regimes: Why revolution occurred in predominantly agrarian countries? (refer to "Old-Regime State in Crisis") He clearly stated a logical development from the three cases. Revolutionary crises developed when the old-regime states became unable to meet the challenges of evolving international situations. Disintegration of centralized administrative and military machinaries had therefore provided the sole unified bulwark of social and political order. Skocpol concluded that in most cases the pre-revolution states were fully established imperial states. They had a proto-bureaucratic: some officers, especially at higher levels, were functionally specialized. State not in a position to control directly over local agrarian socioeconomic relationship. Before social revolutions could occur, the administrative and military power of these states had to break down. Finally, the old regimes to their downfall were not due to internal conditions alone. Intensifying military competition with nation-state abroad that possessed relatively much greater and more flexible power based on economic breakthroughs to capitalist industrialization or agriculture and commerce. Success in meeting this foreign competition depended on the ability of the monarchy suddenly to mobilize extraordinary resources from the society and to implement in the process reforms requiring structural transformations. France, Russia and China did mobilize to meet foreign competition in the nineteenth century, but avoiding social-revolutionary transformations.It preserve a way to address a deeper analysis on the role of peasantry in the revolutions (refer to "Agrarian Structures and Peasant Insurrections"). Peasant revolts or mobilization for guerrilla warfare played a pivotal role in each revolutionary process. In agrarian countries where peasants are the major producing class. From Skocpol's point of view, without peasant revolts, urban radicalism in predominantly agrarian countries has not in the end been able to accomplish socio-revolutionary transformations. Peasant revolts against landlords were a necessary ingredient in France, Russia and China revolutions, whereas successful revolts by urban workers were not. According to Skocpol,the revolts weakened mainstays of the socioeconomic and political orders of the old regime. Together the extensiveness and anti-landlord focus of the revolutionary peasant revolts created decisive constraints at the societal level on the range of sociopolitical options available to elite conten