The argument of the neo-communist text Last and First Men invokes the so-called ‘eonic or macro’ effect and this is what makes the sudden appearance of revolution in the early modern seems so remarkable. By the terms of the ‘eonic or macro’ model this suggest that modern revolution shows macro determination, or at a minimum correlation as a ‘non-random pattern’. This trick of referring to a non-random pattern keeps us from speculating about theories: this pattern is a humdinger stretched over tens of millennia. Explanation may take time.
But the issue is clear for a student of revolution inside a leftist project. Revolution emerges in the early modern and we may not understand the causality. The dilemma is tricky here: we see macro induced revolutions in the early modern, but in the wake of this we must learn and then consciously construct what we think happened in, say, the French Revolution. This is not so simple.
But it is easy to correct the confusion once we see the above as inevitable, assuming we agree with the macro model. But many will have trouble there. In LFM I recommend looking at the macro model and then not using it. We can instead use a chronicle of history and note the way that non-random patterns show a dynamic. We must in the wake of past events freely act on general principles, not on rote repetitions of the past.