You can see his theory take place in the French revolution and the American Revolution. In the French revolution the peasants did not have enough to cover their basic needs of production and reproduction while the bourgeoisie had more than enough. They revolted to create a new social structure and means of production that benefited them. The rich king and queens were replaced by a new system that was believed to benefit the common people more. In the American Revolution, the people living in America were not satisfied with the taxes and policies put in place by the controlling British government so they revolted so they could have their own democracy run by the people for the people so they could all have better production and reproduction in their society. The part I find the most striking is how these two revolutions seem so different in reasoning but can both be connected to Marx's theory of historical materialism. One thing that Marx doesn't seem to explain enough is that not all revolts in history go well or end up being beneficial to production and reproduction. It seems that even some done in the interest of the people end up being for personal gain of a select few or end up with a worse system then when the revolt happened. Marx does create a strong theory when examining history because it seems to apply to many situations. His theory might not be the only