Both French Revolution and Russian one involved quite a lot of sides that fought among themselves and quite a lot of uneducated mobs attacking this or that place - these lost quickly. And yes, they are led by people in position to be leaders with education that gives them advantage. That does not mean the bottom is passive.
Also, counting only successful attempts is probably not good enough. The slaves were running away and were resentful of inequality. What they did not had was the remote option to engage in politics - but they did engaged in it a lot when the opportunity arose. The subsequent suppression of black voting and politics did not happened because they were engaged or passive - it was because they were active.
If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city and they were even less popular outside it.
A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée.
The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.
Russian civil war involved 5 armies. It involved mobs attacking local leaders who fled - they were not necessary related to eventual winners.
French revolution was massively complex event too. Probably even more complex then Russian one.
And in each of these events there were more then one side commuting violence - and there were many people having or voicing opinions about what should happen. That they lost does not mean they don't exist.
That the French and Russian revolutions were complex doesn’t mean that the competitors for political power were ever in any way representative of the population. They weren’t. They were members of the elite or had been educated to a level that they aspired to that.
They weren’t on the bottom. The people on the bottom do not successfully engage in politics except as the tools of the current elite or of a counter-elite that aims to take over from the current elite.
And regardless of these, average Russians had own gripes and opinions on what is fair and what they want. The periodic explosions of violence, the demonstrations and very real possibility of massacre (and refusal to perform it) and revolutionary attempts all played role in eventual loss of controll of the country, but more importantly do not show average Russian as never complaining opinionless person.
But also, popular sentiment did played massive role in French revolution, the way it started and evolved. You can't write if off from history.
Regardless of who wins power in the end, it is just not true that lower class people don't have opinions and complains. You choosing to ignore them is your choice.
Just like popular sentiment in Syria played massive role in the way war started and evolved - despite endgame being eventually won by Russian support. You can't write those people's actions out of history.
Yes, there is a lot of local action, lots of mobs and mobs going after whatever.
But the political outcome is often not determined by those action.
I would however ague that those who can get the mob to act for them can get an advantage. Controlling the population and the mob matters quite a bit, just not as much as people who love the glorified revolution from the bottom like to think.
The former is about low chance of massive success and low likelyhood of gaining chance. The latter is attempting to frame everyone who complains about inequality as unauthentic and attempt to pretend that lower class people don't complain.
Although them voting in a billionaire kinda defies logic, but hey, there's only two parties, plus Trump! :)
For 500+ years before Japan occupied Korean peninsula in 1910, Korea had a strict social class system. Class inequality was very firmly in place. But most accepted it as a natural order, as any society with kings in ruling.
All those social classes were broken down with the Japanese colonialism and the Korean War. Especially the Korean War. The Korean war basically wiped out overnight a large chunk of the landed rich. The society was turned upside down. It was a true leveling of the playing field. I'd say from end of the Korean War (or maybe even starting in 1910), those who rose above others in wealth largely did so on their own. The old money/wealth lost wealth and had none for the children to inherit.
Obviously some cheated (or hacked their way in techie term) to get above. Others worked honestly and did well on test and in job to get above.
So there's less decades/centuries old wealthy class passing down their wealth to their kids.
Getting major urban schools is much harder as a rural kid with a 4.0 GPA than a kid from nearby with the same GPA and parents who attended and donated to the school a few times.
I think Americans are more pissed off because there's been more to make people aware of the long term and growing unfairness.
Its more of who you know than what you know unfortunately.
South Korea itself was a dictatorship until the late 1980s and received preferential treatment in trade talks in the cold war era with Western economies due to their unique role as a buffer against Communist expansion.
This level of privileged access would not be available to less strategically important countries in a 'free market'. Plus SK already provides a level of socialist services that a failed state like North Korea can only dream of.