The Psychology of Revolution | Gustave Le Bon

In his 1913 analysis of The Psychology of Revolution, French physician and polymath Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931) argues that "political revolutions" are abrupt upheavals driven primarily by "affective and mystic elements" rather than "rational discourse," which he attributes to the "erosion of established traditions" and the "contagious spread of discontent."

 

"A revolution is effected from above, that is, by the leaders of the old regime; but when it is victorious it is rapidly vulgarised, because the people interferes and applies the only means in its power—violence. To destroy is within its scope; to reconstruct is beyond it. [...] The instinctive soul of the people is above all remarkable for its extreme mobility. Deceived by its own chimeras, it enthusiastically applauds its idols of a day, to overthrow them the next day in favour of others. No gods ever long survived its favour. This mobility renders the people credulous and ignorant at the same time. 

 

» An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand, which the wind stirs up at will. « 

Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd, 1896.

 

Le Bon argues that during political revolutions, individuals are driven more by inherent character traits than by intellect, with certain mentalities rising to prominence amid chaos:

  

[...] We have seen in all times apostles arise who have had an irresistible influence over the popular mind by cultivating its instincts and speaking its language. The people always follows them with enthusiasm, whether they be ignorant fanatics, hard and upright logicians, ferocious maniacs, or eloquent speakers. Whatever their aims, the leaders of the people are obliged to enter into reciprocity with it, to recognise its psychology, even if they do not share its sentiments. They must be in communion with it, or they will not act upon it. 

 

» The people loves equality, but it respects titles and prestige. «

 

[...] When a political party triumphs, all the forces of interest, ambition, and hatred which parties contain become enlisted in its service, so that the triumph of a political revolution is always accompanied by a complete overthrow of all the institutions of a country. The chief result of a revolution is to sweep away the forces which held together the edifice of government, which was perhaps already tottering, and to substitute for them nothing but the will of the victors, which is for that reason all-powerful. 

 

» Irresistible influence over the popular mind. «

  

[....] A revolution cannot change the soul of a people. This soul commands, and all must obey. It is for this reason that after a revolution the laws and institutions of a people are so often in contradiction with the interests of the new rulers, and also with the prescriptions of pure reason. But presently the laws are modified or abrogated, until they are more or less adapted to necessities. When the dogma which serves as the base of a revolution is victorious, the dissociated social elements which have resulted from the destruction of the old institutions become agglomerated under the action of new ideas."

Le Bon dissects the role of "the people" in such revolutions, distinguishing between the "conservative majority" and a "subversive minority" prone to violence. He argues that the masses are often manipulated and contribute mainly through destructive acts rather than constructive change:

 

"1. The Meaning of the Word 'People:' The term 'people' represents merely the superior portion of a nation. It comprises an elite: the nobility, clergy, magistrates, etc. By extension it was applied to the whole nation, and finally it has come to mean the most inferior elements of the population, the lower populace. We shall examine it in this last sense, and shall show what part the people plays in revolutions. From the political point of view the people may be considered in two aspects—as an army and as a crowd. As an organised army it plays the part of follower. As a crowd it is often revolutionary. 

 

» To become the master of the people one must know how to dazzle it. « 

 

2. How the People regards Revolutions: The revolutions are sometimes regarded with favour by the people, because they represent the triumph of its claims. But the people quickly becomes indifferent, and seeks only tranquility. It is always the people that suffers in revolutions, for it pays the cost in blood and poverty. It is for this reason that it often acclaims the return of a master. 

 

» To destroy is within its scope; to reconstruct is beyond it. «

  

3. The Psychology of Revolutionary Crowds: The revolutionary crowd is formed of transitory elements, recruited from all classes, but chiefly from the instinctive and criminal categories. It is the crowd that acclaims or murders kings, and whose violence has always been the principal factor of revolutions. The psychology of revolutionary crowds shows us that they possess the ordinary mental characteristics of all crowds: contagion, unconsciousness, exaggerated sentiments, intolerance, etc. They are above all remarkable for their credulity and their docility towards their leaders. 

4. The Part of the Leaders in Popular Movements: Although the people in rebellion generally begins by destroying everything, it soon grows weary of anarchy, and instinctively seeks a leader. It loves equality, but it respects titles and prestige. It was thus that all the great popular movements—those of the Reformation, the Revolution, etc.—were effected under the guidance of leaders. 

  

 » The people always follows apostles with enthusiasm. «

[...] From the preceding considerations we may draw the following conclusions: (1) The people, by reason of its instinctive soul, accepts without discussion the ideas presented to it. (2) By reason of its sentimental soul it incarnates these ideas in leaders, to whom it often delegates the direction of its destinies. (3) By reason of its mobile soul it personifies all its sentiments in a fetich. To become the master of the people one must know how to dazzle it, be able to make it hope, and if necessary know how to deceive it. (4) Finally, the leader must possess prestige, speak in images, incessantly repeat the same ideas in different terms, and know how to act by persuasion and never by reasoning." 

 

Le Bon further elaborates on the role of leaders and contagion in precipitating political revolutions, noting that discontent alone is insufficient without amplification through suggestion: 

 

"The role of the leader in all revolutions is very considerable. He does not create the beliefs which provoke them, but he directs them. Without him they would often remain latent and ineffectual. Although the revolution which overthrew the Bourbon dynasty was ripe, we know from the memoirs of contemporaries that without the prestige of Lafayette it would probably have remained nothing but a local riot. Whenever a revolution breaks out in one point of a territory, we see similar revolutions breaking out in succession in all the countries which surround it, even when communication is difficult. It was thus that in 1848 all Europe was inflamed by the revolutionary conflagration, and was shaken by it in spite of the slowness and difficulty of communication."

 

Le Bon finally examines the outcomes of political revolutions as often involving the establishment of new power structures, persecutions, and limited social transformations:

 

"Contrary to what occurred in religious revolutions, political revolutions show us merely peoples adapting themselves to new conditions of existence. We have already seen that this adaptation is effected by means of slow successive evolutions, which render violent revolutions useless. [...] The results of political revolutions being merely displacements of wealth and the triumph of certain classes, we may conclude, contrary to the general opinion, that they have been without psychological significance. They strike the imagination because they are accompanied by much violence, and blood flows in streams.

 

» Contagion, unconsciousness, exaggerated sentiments, intolerance, etc. «

 

But when we look a little closer we soon find that the economic or social changes which result from them are very slight. The importance of political revolutions must not, however, be exaggerated. They sometimes cost a country very dear, although they change nothing in respect of its natural conditions. It is especially when they involve disastrous wars that their results are most pernicious." 

 

Reference:

Gustave Le Bon (1913) - The Psychology of Revolution. 

 

See also:

Gustave Le Bon (1913) - The Psychology of Revolution. (complete audiobook) 

Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Rulers and the Ruled (Elementi di scienza política).

Alexander L. Chizhevsky (1924) - The Physical Factors of the Historical Process.

Neema Parvini (2018) - The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" and the Delusion of Democracy.

Alexander L. Chizhevsky (December 14, 2025) - Mass Excitability during Solar Cycle 25 (2019–2030).

Russia will be Happy with either Harris or Trump | Alexander Dugin

If Trump wins, he will act differently than he did during his first term in office. He won't have another chance to put his ideas into action. And he does have ideas. He wants to change everything in both US foreign and domestic policy. And now he's not gonna care about the Swamp. He will have to napalm it. In fact, he'll establish a national idea against globalism, and maybe even raise the dizzyingly Hegelian question of constitutional monarchy. And how else to make America great again than by proclaiming a monarchy! And you have Curtis Yarvin, the mastermind behind the post-liberal right-wing Vance, saying the same thing. And yes, Trump will likely lift sanctions on Russia and try to break our alliance with China.

»  We'll be supporting not Trump, but Kamala Harris. She will destroy America for sure. «

However, we'll be supporting not Trump, but Kamala Harris. And rightfully so. After all, she will destroy America for sure. It's certainly a safer option. But we're happy with either candidate. We can deal with either a great strong American monarchy based on traditional values (Trump will quickly eliminate all its furries and quadrobers and lgbt+ people, take away dope from drug addicts, and finally build the highest wall with Latin America), or stoned liberal degenerates on all fours, who abandon their old astronauts in orbit because of commercial expediency and encourage illegal migrants to rob stores and kill whites. These are very promising elections for Russia. So, we have no reason to interfere in them. What for?

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (September 9, 2024) - 2024 US Presidential Election: Russia Will Win Regardless of Outcome. 

Chinese Intellectual Shen Yi on the US presidential Debate, September 10, 2024.
 

See also:
Putin Aligns with Biden's Support for Kamala Harris as Next U.S. President —  September 5, 2024.

Pepe Escobar (July 15, 2024) - Wishing Comrade Trump a Speedy Recovery.

Despite Biden's Latest Insult, Putin Still Supports Biden's Re-election —  February 22, 2024.

Martin Armstrong (August 30, 2024) - The U.S. Is Now Ready for Violence, Civil War & Secession.

The Rulers and the Ruled | Gaetano Mosca

Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most casual eye. In all societies — from all societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies — two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

 

[...] In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in concert and have a mutual understanding simply because they are a hundred and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political community, the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the governed majority be, and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority.

"I can certainly call myself an anti-democrat, but I am not an anti-liberal;
indeed I am opposed to pure democracy precisely because I am a liberal.
I believe that the ruling class ought not to be monolithic and homogeneous
but ought to consist of elements which are diverse in regard to origin and
interests; when, instead, political power originates from a single source,
even if this be elections with universal suffrage, I regard it as dangerous
and liable to become oppressive. Democratic Jacobinism is an illiberal
doctrine precisely because it subordinates everything to a single force,
that of the so-called majority, on which it does not set any limits."

[...] What happens in other forms of government — namely, that an organized minority imposes its will on the disorganized majority — happens also and to perfection, whatever the appearances to the contrary, under the representative system. When we say that the voters ‘choose’ their representative, we are using a language that is very inexact. The truth is that the representative has himself elected by the voters, and, if that phrase should seem too inflexible and too harsh to fit some cases, we might qualify it by saying that his friends have him elected. In elections, as in all other manifestations of social life, those who have the will and, especially, the moral, intellectual and material means to force their will upon others take the lead over the others and command them.

[...] From our point of view there can be no antagonism between state and society. The state is to be looked upon merely as that part of society which performs the political function. Considered in this light, all questions touching interference or noninterference by the state come to assume a new aspect. Instead of asking what the limits of state activity ought to be, we try to find out what the best type of political organization is, which type, in other words, enables all the elements that have a political significance in a given society to be best utilized and specialized, best subjected to reciprocal control and to the principle of individual responsibility for the things that are done in the respective domains.

"Who says organization, says oligarchy. [...] Historical evolution mocks all the
prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
Robert Michels, 1911

[...] Any political organization is both voluntary and coercive at one and the same time — voluntary because it arises from the very nature of man, as was long ago noted by Aristotle, and coercive because it is a necessary fact, the human being finding himself unable to live otherwise. It is natural, therefore, and at the same time indispensable, that where there are men there should automatically be a society, and that when there is a society there should also be a state — that is to say, a minority that rules and a majority that is ruled by the ruling minority.

Quoted from:
Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Ruling Class (Elementi di scienza política).

See also:

 Robert Michels (1915) - Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie).
Vilfredo Pareto (1916) - The Mind and Society (Trattato di sociologia generale).