We propose that the widespread resentment against authority automatically produce social mobilization (Durkheim), The French Revolution can be explained from the anger of the people with the King. Te as stipulated in the Collective Behavior, a the ability of individual suggestions and irritability are characteristic of situations of social unrest arising from the various forms of behavior omnibus (Park, 1939), In the French Revolution, were the working classes, 80% of the population were peasants increasingly impoverished, given the constant price increases and the pressing debt that was mobilized, but contrary to what has been thought, was not the alleged poverty of the rural origin of the revolution, but the enmity of the people came because of the corruption of morals and degradation of the Court. To this, in 1789, he joined a social crisis resulting from agricultural underproduction crisis dragged the industry. The French Revolution was not based on a continuous ideological structure of organized groups. We can not speak of a rational organization, with a mobilization of resources to be used to fight for goals set in advance, as required by the theory of Resource Mobilization (McCarthy and Zald). For them, the movement's success will lie in the organizational factor, how to use the available resource, is managed rationally both the organization and the context, with both connected. In the French Revolution there was no formal motion, a complaint ideological simply discontent a "which could be compared to the widespread belief Smelser, acting as the equivalent of a collective identity, the agitation grew (especially in big cities ) and specific disorders (emerging markets) due to lack of supply a "precipitating factors" that grew to revolt in some cities due to political problems a "more precipitating factors" (representative of the third State, ), but without a network connection.