The interpretation from the collective action theory (Turner and Killian), defines a social movement as a collectivity that acts in continuity to promote or resist change in society and, in that case, in France 5 in 40 years (1750-1789), the population grew from 20 to 26 million people, in a society estates (nobility, clergy and third State), in which the bourgeoisie, which had amassed huge fortunes and which had more advanced and cultured education, it was excluded of administrative charges and the State. According to different authors, it can be said that there is a direct relationship between the emergence of collective action and a feeling of discontent or unrest. There is widespread resentment against the authority will automatically produce a social mobilization (Durkheim); The French revolution could be explained from the anger of the people with the King. As stated the theory of collective behavior, the ability of individual suggestion and irritability are characteristics of situations of social unrest arise in which different forms of collective behavior (Park, 1939); In the French Revolution, were the popular classes – 80% of the population were peasants – increasingly more impoverished, given the constant price rises and pressing public debt which was mobilized; but, contrary to what is thought, wasn’t the alleged misery of peasant origin of the revolution, but that the animosity of the people came by the corruption of morals and degradation of the Court. Added to this, in 1789, a social crisis for the agricultural sub-production that dragged the industry crisis. The French Revolution was not based on a continuous ideological structure of organized groups. We cannot speak of a rational organization with a mobilization of resources that will be used to fight for a few targets in advance, as provided by the theory of the resource mobilization (McCarthy and Zald).