ally, Mexican. These revolutionary processes were characterized by the societal
tensions surrounding the transition from feudalism to capitalism, particularly
class struggle; they marked the demise of "ancient, traditional royal, or imperial
regimes." ⁵ As a result, research on these revolutions focused on their causes. Com-
monly these revolutions were portrayed as evidence of the "grand sweep of his-
tory" and the importance of institutions and structures.

The revolutions in France, Russia, China, and Mexico thus may be seen as the
"first generation" of social revolutions. These revolutions have served to help so-
cial scientists and others define the term revolution, and they have fueled research
on a "second generation" of revolutions, those in the Third World since World
War II. ⁶ Here again, the focus has largely been on the causes of revolution, partic-
ularly the role played by the peasantry. ⁷ Yet the reference point ultimately seems
to remain the first-generation revolutions. The modern Latin American revolu-
tions are related--but distinct from their predecessors. ⁸ The importance of these
differences should not be ignored.

The links between the two generations are not difficult to discern. In both, the
social revolutionary process broadly unfolds in the same pattern: insurrection,
political victory, and the effort to transform society. ⁹ Recognition of this connec-
tion is important, among other reasons, because it allows us to take advantage of
and build on the outstanding work done by several generations of social science
theorists of revolution. It also reminds us of the extent to which revolutionaries
look to past revolutions for both negative and positive examples. All four revolu-
tions considered here--the Bolivian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Grenadian--drew
to varying degrees on the experience of the Mexican revolution. ¹⁰

There are, however, important and meaningful differences between the first
and second generation of revolutions. At least two of these differences relate to
the changes that have occurred in the international system. The modern Latin
American revolutions have come of age in a time of economic dependency that
contrasts rather sharply with that of the essentially preindustrial first genera-
tion. ¹¹ Furthermore, these revolutions have not occurred in "large and predomi-
nantly rural nations with long-standing traditional governments," but rather in
neocolonial settings that featured relatively modern government institutions. ¹²
Although these differences are important, it is also the case that they can be read-
ily captured by a structural perspective.

Some differences cannot be easily captured by such a perspective. The con-
scious choices and intentional actions of people have played clearly critical roles
in the revolutionary processes. The modern Latin American revolutions in par-
ticular have been characterized by profoundly multiclass alliances and high de-
grees of voluntarism. Structural theories are poorly equipped to explain the even
minor cross-class alliances present in these cases and largely deny the impor-
tance of leadership in the first-generation revolutions. Such theories are even less
useful in helping to understand cases such as Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and
Grenada.

-2-