Responding to Hugo Slim’s critique, John Dunn defends
his notion of the “Epoch of Revolution.” The response advances
that this protracted epoch was defined by the unique way in which
the category of revolution itself defined key possibilities for collective
political, social, and economic transformation. In doing so,
Dunn argues, this category transformed the conditions of political
action across a large part of the world. Dunn classifies Slim’s cases
as instances of rebellion that, though significant and important, do
not share the teleological character of revolution.