In regimes where corruption, tyranny, and inequality are pervasive, the ruling class is usually able to live in prosperity through consolidating the wealth and resources of their country, while the general population is left struggling, disenfranchised, and hopelessly impoverished. While the call for revolution is often motivated by the aforementioned conditions of poverty, oppression, and general abuse, Kapuściński keenly observes that “revolutions erupt rarely” (Kapuściński, 103). Perhaps instead of asking why revolutions, we should be asking why not revolutions?

Kapuściński asserts that the first phase of revolution begins with an awakening, characterized by a population becoming aware that the abuses of their government “are not the natural order of this world”.  While Kapuściński asserts that the consciousness of injustice will first provoke an outcry for change and progress, he eventually cites that if change is not created through other means of protest, a population will rebel as a “last resort”.  However, Kapuściński never truly elaborates on this notion of a last resort. In order for a person to participate in a revolutionary activity, they must be willing to sacrifice their life for their cause. They must be willing to look down the barrel of a gun, and indignantly disobey authority potentially at the expense of their life.

Revolution erupts when the consequence of dying fighting for change becomes a more favorable recourse, compared to the alternative of inaction. The stakes for both the revolutionary and the regime are literally life and death, and there can only be one winner. Moreover, it is irrational for a revolutionary to believe that they stand a chance to win, outgunned by a repressive state apparatus. Revolutions should be ubiquitously suicidal, and while they often are, David can occasionally topple Goliath. The elements of a revolution, the irrationality, the desperation, and the possibility for the impossible to occur, are what makes revolutions so alluring.